Byzantine Fathers of the V-VIII centuries

Part 4

9. The Chalcedonian oros was revised from the exposition of the faith of the year 433. The fathers of 451 did not immediately agree to draw up a new definition of faith. It seemed possible once again to confine ourselves to a general reference to tradition and prohibitions against heresies. Others were ready to be satisfied with a volume of Leo. Apparently, many were deterred by the fear of alienating the blind adherents of St. Cyril by a premature dogmatic definition, who with inert stubbornness clung not so much to his teaching as to his words. This fear was justified. The Chalcedonian oros turned out to be a stumbling block and temptation for the "Egyptians", first of all, already in terms of language and terminology. However, under the circumstances, it was no less dangerous to remain with unreliable, ambiguous and controversial formulas... We cannot trace the history of the composition of the Chalcedonian oros in all the details. From the conciliar "acts" we can only guess about the former disputes, More disputes were held outside general meetings, at private conferences, during breaks... The accepted text reads as follows: "Following the Holy Fathers, we all teach in agreement to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in the Godhead and perfect in humanity; one and the same true God and truly man, of the rational soul and the body, of one essence with the Father in divinity and of one essence with us in humanity, in all things like us the food of sin, born before the ages of the Father according to divinity, and in the last days for our sake and for our salvation from Mary the Virgin Theotokos according to humanity; One and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only-begotten, in two natures, unmerged, unchanging, inseparable, inseparably cognizable, so that by union the difference of natures is not in the least violated, but rather the particularity of each nature is preserved and they are united into one person and one hypostasis; — not divided or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets taught us before, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us, and how He handed down to us the symbol of the fathers"... The closeness to the "agreement" of 433 is immediately apparent. But very characteristic additions have been made to it. First, instead of: "for the union of the two natures was accomplished" (δύо γάρ φύσεων ένωσις γέγоνε), it is now said: "known in two natures" (έν δύо φύσεων)... There was a dispute about this expression at the council. In the original and not extant sentence there was: "of two natures" (εκ δύо φύσεων); And, apparently, most of them "liked" it. The objection was made from the "Eastern" side – the formula seemed evasive... This was not "Nestorian" suspicion. Indeed, "out of two" sounded weaker than just "two". For Eutyches also agreed to speak of the "two natures" before the union (which is exactly what the "of the two" corresponds to), but not in the union itself; and Dioscorus at the council openly declared that "of the two" he accepts, and "two" he does not accept... Leo had: "in two natures", in duаbus naturis... After a new drafting meeting, its wording was adopted: "in two"... It was sharper and more definite than before: "the union of the two"... And most importantly, at the same time, attention was transferred from the moment of union to the one Person himself... There are two ways to think about the Incarnation. Or in the contemplation of the successive dispensation of God He comes to the event of the Incarnation, "and the union was accomplished"... Or to proceed from the contemplation of the Divine-human face, in which the duality is recognized, which is revealed in this duality... St. Cyril usually thought in the first order. However, all the pathos of his statements is connected with the second: the Incarnate Word should not be spoken of as before the Incarnation, for the union has been accomplished... And in this respect the Chalcedonian formula is very close to his spirit... Secondly, in the Chalcedonian definition, the expressions "one person" and "one hypostasis" are directly and decisively equated, έν πρόσωπоν and μία ύπόστασις, the former being consolidated and strengthened together through the latter... This identification, perhaps, is the very tip of the oros... In part, the words are taken from Leo: in unam coeunte personаm, — in oros: είς έν πρόσоπоν καί μίαν ύπόστασιν συντρεχόυσης... But significant: "and into one hypostasis"... It is here that the acute and burning question of Christological terminology is touched upon. The descriptive: the "person" (of course, the "face" rather than the "personality") is transferred to the ontological plane: the "hypostasis"... At the same time, in the Chalcedonian oros, two metaphysical concepts are clearly distinguished: "nature" and "hypostasis". This is not a simple opposition of the "general" and the "particular" (as was established by Basil the Great). "Nature" in the Chalcedonian Oros is not an abstract or general concept, it is not "general as distinct from particular," minus the "isolating" properties. The unity of the hypostasis means the unity of the subject. And the duality of natures signifies the fullness of concrete determinations (properties) according to two natures, in two real planes—"perfection," i.e., precisely the concrete fullness of properties, both "in the Godhead" and in humanity. In the Chalcedonian oros there is a paradoxical understatement. From the connection of the speech it is immediately evident that the hypostatic center of the Divine-human unity is recognized as the Divinity of the Word, "one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only-begotten, in two natures knowable..., one and the same Son and Only-begotten"... But this is not stated directly, the unity of the hypostasis is not directly defined, as the hypostasis of the Word. Hence precisely the further ambiguity about human "nature." What does it mean to recognize "nature" but not "hypostasis"? Can there really be a "hypostatic nature"? Such was historically the main objection to the Chalcedonian oros. It clearly confesses the absence of human hypostasis, in a certain sense precisely the "hypostasis" of human nature in Christ. And it is not explained how this is possible. Here is precisely the intimate affinity of oros with the theology of St. Cyril. The recognition of human "hypostasis" is the recognition of the asymmetry of the Divine-human unity. In this, oros moves away from the "Eastern" way of thinking. And at the same time there are two parallel series of "properties" and determinations, "in the two natures," "in the Godhead," and "in humanity." So it is in the "scroll" of Leo. But they come together not only in the unity of the face, but also in the unity of hypostasis... Understatement goes back to ineffability. The paradox of the Chalcedonian oros is that the "perfection" of Christ is immediately confessed "in humanity" — "of one essence with us in humanity, in all things similar to us except sin," which means that everything can and should be said about Christ, as about every man, as a man, except for sin — and it is denied that Christ was (simple) man — He is God incarnate... He did not "receive man," but "became man." Everything human is predicated about Him, He can be taken for a man, but He is not a "man", but God... This is the paradox of the truth about Christ, which is refracted in the paradox of the Chalcedonian exposition... The Chalcedonian Fathers had a twofold task. Eliminate the possibility of a "Nestorian" dissection, on the one hand; that is why the identity ("One and the Same") is so sharply expressed in the oros, and the unity of the face is defined as the unity of hypostasis. To affirm the perfect co-measurement ("consubstantial") or "likeness" (i.e. the coincidence of all qualitative determinations) of Christ in humanity with the entire human race, of which He appeared as Saviour precisely because He became its Head and was born of a Virgin in humanity, on the other hand; this is precisely what is emphasized by the confession of the two natures, i.e., in fact, by the definition of the "human" in Christ as "nature," and moreover "perfect," complete, and consubstantial. It turns out to be a formal discrepancy: "the fullness of humanity", but not "man"... In this imaginary "mismatch" all the expressiveness of the Chalcedonian oros... But there is also a real understatement and a certain incompleteness in it. Oros makes certain ("Dyophysite") terminology obligatory, and thereby forbids any other terminology. This prohibition referred, first of all, to the terminology of St. Cyril, to his verbal "Monophysitism." This was necessary, firstly, because the recognition of the "one nature" made it easy to cover up real Apollinarism or Eutychianism, i.e. the denial of the human "consubstantiality" of Christ. But this was necessary, secondly, also for the accuracy of concepts. St. Cyril spoke of the "one nature" and spoke only of the Divinity in Christ in the strict sense as of "nature," precisely in order to emphasize the "hypostasis" of humanity in Christ, in order to express the incommensurability of Christ with (simple) people in the "way of existence" of humanity in Him—of course, not in terms of the properties or qualities of this human composition. For him, the concept of "nature" or "nature" meant precisely the concreteness of being (being itself, not only the "image" of being), i.e., as it were, the "first essence" of Aristotle. And therefore, for a more precise definition of both the composition and the way of being of human definitions in Christ, he inevitably lacked words. Ambiguity was created, which confused the "Easterners"... It was necessary to clearly distinguish between these two moments: composition and "way of being". This was achieved through a kind of subtraction of "hypostasis" from the concept of "nature," without, however, that this concept should be transformed from the concrete ("particular") into the "general" or "abstract." Strictly speaking, a new concept of "nature" was constructed. However, neither in the oros itself, nor in the "acts" of the council, was this clearly stated or explained. And at the same time, the "one hypostasis" was not directly defined as the Hypostasis of the Word. Therefore, the impression could be created that the "fullness of humanity" in Christ is affirmed too sharply, and the "image" of his existence remains unclear... This was not a flaw in the definition of faith. But it required a theological commentary. The council itself did not give it. This commentary was given with great delay, almost a hundred years after the Council of Chalcedon, in the time of Justinian, in the works of Leontius of Byzantium... The Chalcedonian oros, as it were, warned events, even more than the Nicene Creed did in its time. And, perhaps, not everyone at the council understood its hidden meaning to the very end, just as in Nicaea not everyone understood the full significance and decisiveness of the confession of the Word as consubstantial with the Father. It should be recalled that in the Nicene Creed there was a certain formal awkwardness and inconsistency (and almost the same: the indistinction between the concepts of "essence" and "hypostasis", the combination of "consubstantial" and "from the essence of the Father")... This created the need for further discussion and dispute. Only the polemical or "ogonistic" meaning of the new definition was immediately clear, and the dividing and enclosing line was confidently drawn. And the positive confession had yet to be revealed in the theological synthesis. A new topic was given for him... It should also be noted that the "union of natures" (or "unity of hypostasis") is defined in the Chalcedonian oros as unmerged, unchanging, indivisible, inseparable (άσυγχύτως, άτρέπτως, άδιαιρέτως, άχωρίστως). All negative definitions. "Inseparability" and "inseparability" determine unity, the image of unity. "Non-fusion" and "immutability" refer to "natures"—their properties ("peculiarities") are not removed or changed by conjunction, but remain precisely "immutable," even as it were, fixed by conjunction. The spearhead of these negations is directed against all "Apollinarianism," against any thought of union as a transforming synthesis. Oros explicitly excludes the idea of "fusion" (σύγχυσις) or "confusion" (κράσις). In the fourth century, it was against Apollinaris that the Divine-human unity was usually defined as "confusion (κράσις and μίξις). Now it seemed dangerous. And again there was no exact word to express the image of the ineffable union in any likeness or analogy.

Part 5

10. The Chalcedonian oros caused a tragic schism in the Church. Historical Monophysitism is precisely the rejection and rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, the schism and rupture with the "synodites." The Monophysite movement as a whole can be compared with the anti-Nicene movement. And the composition of the Monophysite schism was as variegated and heterogeneous as that of the so-called "anti-Nicene coalition" in the middle of the fourth century. There were always few real "Eutychians" and Apollinarians among the Monophysites, from the very beginning. For the Monophysite majority, Eutyches was as much a heretic as he was for the Orthodox. Dioscorus restored him and received him into communion more from outside motives than from agreement with him by faith, most likely in defiance of Flavian... In any case, in Chalcedon, Dioscorus openly rejected all "confusion," and "transformation," and "dissection." And Anatolius of Constantinople, during the discussion of oros at the council, reminded that "Dioscorus was not deposed for the faith." The words of Anatolius, of course, do not yet prove that Dioscorus was not mistaken in anything. However, it is very characteristic that Dioscorus was tried and condemned at the council not for heresy, but for the Ephesian robbery and "murder"... Neither Dioscorus nor Timothy Elurus denied the "double consubstantiality" of the God-man, to the Father according to Divinity, and to the human race according to humanity. And the same must be said of the majority of Monophysites. They claimed to be faithful and the sole guardians of the Cyril faith. At any rate, they were speaking his language, his words. And the Chalcedonian oros seemed to them to be covered by Nestorianism... The theology of this Monophysite majority was, first of all, a systematization of the teaching of St. Cyril. In this respect, the theological views of Philoxenus of Hierapolis and Severus of Antioch, the two most important leaders of Syrian Monophysitism at the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century, are particularly characteristic. It was Severus's system that became the official dogmatic doctrine of the Monophysite Church when it finally closed in on itself, both the Syrian Jacobites and the Copts in Egypt, and the Armenian Church. It was, first of all, formal and verbal Monophysitism. These Monophysites spoke of the Divine-human unity as the "unity of nature," but μία φύσις meant little more to them than the μία ύπόστασις of the Chalcedonian oros. By the name of "nature" they meant precisely "hypostasis" (Severus directly notes this); In this respect, they were rather strict arresters, and only "individuals" or "hypostases" were recognized as real or existing. In any case, in the "unity of nature" the duality of "natural qualities" (the term of St. Cyril) did not disappear or remove for them. That is why Philoxenus already called the "single nature" complex. This concept of "complex nature" is the main God of Severus' system — μία φύσις σύνθετоς Severus defines the divine-human unity precisely as "synthesis," "compilation," σύνθεσις. And at the same time he strictly distinguishes "composing" from any fusion or confusion: in "composing" there is no change or transformation of the "components", but they are only "combined" inseparably, they do not exist "separately". Therefore, for Severus, the "double consubstantiality" of the Incarnate Word is an indisputable and immutable dogma, a criterion of true faith... Severus is more likely to be called "diplophysitis" than monophysite in the proper sense of the word. He even agreed to "distinguish" in Christ "two natures" (or, better, "two essences"), and not only "before the union", but even in the union itself ("after the union"), with the proviso, of course, that it can only be a question of mental or analytical distinction ("in contemplation", έν θεωρία; "by invention", κατ' έπίνоιαν), and again it is almost a repetition of the words of St. Cyril... For Severus and for the Sevirians, the "unity of nature" meant the unity of the subject, the unity of the face, the unity of life. They were much closer to St. Cyril, something that usually seemed to the ancient polemicists. Comparatively recently, the works of Monophysite theologians have again become available to us (in ancient Syriac translations), and it has become possible to judge their views without the mediation of biased witnesses. It is no longer necessary to speak of Monophysitism as a revived Apollinarianism, and it is necessary to make a strict distinction between "Eutychians" and "Monophysites" in the broad sense of the word. It is very characteristic that this line was quite firmly drawn by John of Damascus. In his book "On Heresies in Brief" Damascene speaks directly of the "Monophysites" as schismatics and schismatics, but not heretics. "The Egyptians, they are also schismatics and Monophysites. Under the pretext of the Chalcedonian definition, they separated from the Orthodox Church. They are called Egyptians because the Egyptians were the first to begin this type of division ("heresy") under the kings Marcian and Valentian. In all other respects they are Orthodox" (heresy 83)... However, this is what makes the schism mysterious and incomprehensible. Of course, divisions in the Church are quite possible without dogmatic disagreement. Both political passion and darker passions can disrupt and tear apart the unity of the Church. In the Monophysite movement, from the very beginning, national or regional motives were attached to religious motives. For the "Egyptians" the Council of Chalcedon was unacceptable and hateful not only because in its definition of faith it taught about "two natures," but also because in the well-known 28th canon it exalted Constantinople over Alexandria, which the Orthodox Alexandrians themselves did not reconcile themselves to. It is no accident that "Monophysitism" very soon becomes a non-Greek faith, the faith of the Syrians, Copts, Ethiopians, and Armenians. National separatism is always felt very acutely in the history of Monophysite disputes. The dogmatics of Monophysitism is very much connected with the Greek tradition, it is only from Greek terminology that it is understandable, from the Greek system of thought, from the categories of Greek metaphysics; It was the Greek theologians who worked out the dogmatics of the Monophysite Church. However, Monophysitism as a whole is very characteristic of a sharp hatred of Hellenism, the "Greek" in their mouths is a synonym for pagan ("Greek books and pagan sciences")... Greek Monophysitism was comparatively short-lived. And in Syria, very soon, the direct eradication of everything Greek begins. In this respect, the fate of one of the most remarkable Monophysite theologians of the seventh century, James of Edessa, is very characteristic, especially famous for his biblical works (he is called the Syriac Jerome). He had to leave the famous monastery of Evsebola, where he had tried for eleven years to revive Greek science, "persecuted by the brethren who hated the Greeks"... All these extraneous motives, of course, were very confusing and inflamed the theological dispute. However, their importance should not be exaggerated in any way. The decisive factor was still the religious difference of feeling, namely the difference of feeling, not so much the difference of opinion. This explains the stubborn attachment of the Monophysites to the theological language of St. Cyril and their insurmountable suspicion of the Chalcedonian oros, where they invariably imagined "Nestorianism." This cannot be explained by a mere difference in mental make-up or habits of thought. This is not explained by the admiration for the alleged antiquity of the Monophysite formula ("forgeries of the Apollinarians"). It can hardly be thought that Severus in particular did not know how to understand the Chalcedonian terminology, that he would not have been able to understand that the "Synodites" use words differently from him, but in the content of the faith they do not stray so far from him. But the fact is that Monophysitism was not a theological heresy, it was not a "heresy" of theologians, and it is not in theological constructions or formulas that its soul, its mystery, is revealed. It is true that Severus's system can be almost completely transposed into Chalcedonian terminology. But only "almost". There is always a certain residue... What distinguishes the Monophysites from St. Cyril is primarily the spirit of the system. It was very difficult to reconstruct the inspired teaching of Cyril into a logical system. And terminology made this task difficult. The most difficult thing was to clearly define the image and character of human "properties" in the Divine-human synthesis. The Severians could not speak of the humanity of Christ as of "nature." It decomposed into a system of properties. For the doctrine of the "perception" of mankind by the Word had not yet developed in Monophysitism to the idea of "hypostasis." The Monophysites usually spoke of the humanity of the Word as a "dispensation" (oίκoνoμία). And it was not in vain that the "synodites" caught here a subtle taste of a kind of docetism. Of course, this is not at all the docetism of the ancient Gnostics, nor is it Apollinarianism. For the Sevirians, however, the "human" in Christ was not fully human. For it was not active, it was not "self-moving" — here is the subtlest affinity with Apollinarius, who was confused precisely by the union of "two perfect and self-moving"... In the contemplation of the Monophysites, humanity in Christ was, as it were, a passive object of Divine influence. "Deification" (theosis) was presented as a one-sided act of the Godhead, without sufficient consideration of the synergy of human freedom (the assumption of which does not presuppose a "second subject"). In their religious experience, the moment of freedom was not sufficiently expressed at all, and this can be called anthropological minimalism. In a sense, there is an affinity between Monophysitism and Augustinism: the human is overshadowed and, as it were, suppressed by the Divine. And what Augustine said about the irresistible action of grace in the Monophysite doctrine refers to the divine-human "synthesis." In this sense, one can speak of the "potential assimilation" of humanity by the Deity of the Word, even in the system of Severus... In Severus, this is reflected in his intricate and strained teaching about the "one God-manly action" (the expression is taken from the Areopagiticus). The actor is always One, the Word. And therefore it is one in action ("energy"). But at the same time it is complex, complex in its manifestations (τά άπоτελέσματα), in accordance with the complexity ("syntheticism") of the acting nature or subject. A single action manifests itself in two ways. And the same applies to the will (or volition). In other words, the Divine action is refracted and, as it were, concealed in the "natural qualities" of humanity perceived by the Word... It must be remembered that Severus was dealing here with a difficulty that had not been solved in the Orthodox theology of his time. And among Orthodox theologians the concept of "deification" sometimes took on a tinge of the irresistible influence of the Divine. However, for Severus, the difficulty turned out to be insurmountable, in view of the clumsiness and inflexibility of the "Monophysite" language. And also because in his meditation he always proceeds from the Divinity of the Word, and not from the Divine-human face. Formally, this was the path of Cyril, but in essence it led to the idea of human passivity (one might even say lack of freedom) of the God-Man. And in these deviations of thought the vagueness of the Christological vision was expressed. The human in Christ appeared to these conservative Monophysites to be too transfigured, not qualitatively, not physically, of course, but potentially or virtually; in any case, in such a way that it does not act freely, the Divine is not manifested in the freedom of man... In part, there is a simple understatement here, and in Severus's time, Orthodox theologians also did not always reveal the teaching about the human freedom of Christ (or rather, about the freedom of the "human" in Christ) with sufficient clarity and completeness. However, Severus did not raise the question of freedom at all and, of course, not by chance. Under his presuppositions, the question itself must have seemed "Nestorian," a hidden assumption of the "second subject." The Orthodox answer (as it is given by St. Maximus) presupposes a distinction between "nature" and "hypostasis": not only "man" ("hypostasis") is free, but also "human" as such ("nature" itself), in all its "natural qualities," in everyone and in everyone. And such recognition no longer fits into the framework of the Monophysite (although "Dyophysite") doctrine... Severus's system was the theology of the "Monophysite" majority. It can be called conservative Monophysitism. But the history of Monophysitism is a history of constant strife and division. It is not so important that from time to time we meet under the name of Monophysites separate groups of either Apollinarians, or followers of Eutyches, or new Docetists or "fantasists," who taught about the "transformation" or "fusion" of natures, who denied the consubstantiality of humanity in Christ, or spoke directly about the "heavenly" origin and nature of the body of Christ. These isolated heretical outbursts testify only to the general ferment and restlessness of minds. Much more important are the divisions and disputes that arise in the mainstream of the Monophysite movement. They reveal to us his inner logic, his driving motives. And first of all, the dispute between Severus and Julian of Halicarnassus. Julian seemed to be a Docet to Severus as well. True, Severus was not impartial in his polemics. Later Orthodox polemicists argued not so much with Julian as with his enthusiastic followers. In any case, in the authentic writings of Julian there is none of that crude docetism of which his opponents often speak, accusing him of transforming the mystery of the Redemption into a kind of "fantasy and dream vision" (hence the name "phantasists") by his teaching about the innate "incorruption" (άφθαρσία) of the Saviour's body. Julian's system of the "incorruption" of the body of Christ is connected not with his understanding of the Divine-human unity, but with his understanding of original sin, with its general anthropological presuppositions. Here Julian is very close to Augustine (of course, this is a similarity, not a dependence). Of the Monophysite theologians, he is the closest to Philoxenus. Julian considers the primordial nature of man to be "incorruptible", "non-suffering" and non-mortal, free from the so-called "irreproachable passions" (i.e. infirmities or "suffering" states in general, πάθη άδιάβλητα). The Fall essentially and hereditarily damages human nature—it becomes weak, mortal, and perishable. In the Incarnation, God the Word perceives the nature of the first-created Adam, "impassible" and "incorruptible," and therefore becomes the New Adam. That is why Christ suffered and died not "according to the necessity of nature" (not έξ άνάγκης φυσικής), but willingly, "for the sake of the economy" (λόγω oίκoνoμίας), "by the will of the "Godhead", "in the order of a miracle". However, Christ's suffering and death were genuine and real, not an "opinion" or a "ghost." But they were completely free, since it was not the death of "perishable" and "passionate" ("suffering") humanity, since there was no fatal doom of the Fall in them... There is still no heresy in this teaching... But it merges with the other. Julian imagined the divine-human unity to be closer than Severus. He refused to "number" or distinguish the "natural qualities" in the divine-human synthesis, he refused even "in invention" to distinguish between "two essences" after union—the concept of "essence" had for him the same concrete ("individual") meaning as the concept of "nature" or "hypostasis." In the incarnation of the Word, the "incorruption" of the perceived body is strengthened by such a close union with the Divinity that in suffering and death it was removed by a certain house-building allowance of God. In Julian's understanding, this did not violate the human "consubstantiality" of the Saviour. But in any case, he clearly exaggerated the "potential assimilation" of the human by the Divine by virtue of the Incarnation itself. And again this is connected with a lack of feeling, with a passive understanding of "deification". Julian understood the "incorruptibility" of primordial human nature as its objective state rather than as a free possibility. And in Christ he understood "impassibility" and "incorruption" too passively. It is precisely this quietism that disturbs the equilibrium in Julian's system. He did not proceed from the analysis of metaphysical concepts. In his system, the decisive significance of the soteriological ideal is clearly felt... Julian's followers went even further. They were called Aphthartodocetes ("imperishables") and "fantasies," which are a good expression of the quietism (rather than "Docetism") that was conspicuous in their way of thinking. The human is passively transformed. To some of Julian's followers it seemed that this humanity, transfigured and deified in the Divine-human unity, could no longer be called "created" — thus arose the sect of the Actistites ("netvarniki")... A similar conclusion has been reached by some of Severus's supporters in the controversy about the human knowledge of Christ. In the Divine-human unity, the limitation of human knowledge must be removed immediately and passively, otherwise there will be a split between human "ignorance" and Divine omniscience, and the "unity of nature" will be broken. Thus reasoned in Alexandria the supporters of a certain Stephen Niov. This argument is partly reminiscent of Apollinarius' arguments (not conclusions) about the impossibility of a genuine union of the "two perfects" precisely because of the limitations and vicissitudes of the human mind. But the "Niovites" found another way out of this difficulty; they denied any difference in Christ after the union, in which the human mind was immediately elevated to Divine omniscience. Here, again, the quietistic understanding of human thought was at play. Most of the Severians were "cryptics" in this matter—the omniscience of Christ was only not manifested in humanity. It seemed impious to admit that the human "ignorance" of Christ (in particular about the day of judgment) could be real, and was not only an applied omission... It should be noted again that there was an unresolved question for Orthodox theology here. But for the Monophysites it was also insoluble. In other words, within the limits of the Monophysite premises, it was solvable only through the recognition of the passive assimilation of the human by the Divine... In all these disputes, the vagueness and vagueness of the religious vision, damaged by anthropological quietism, is revealed. In the Monophysite movement there is an inner duality, a dichotomy of feeling and thought. It can be said that the theology of the Monophysites was more Orthodox than their ideals; In other words, the theologians in Monophysitism were more Orthodox than the multitude of believers, but even their unsuccessful, "Monophysite" language prevented theologians from reaching the final clarity. Therefore, in a strange and unexpected way, Monophysitism becomes "more Orthodox" precisely when the religious wave subsides and theology cools down into scholasticism. It is then that the closeness of the Monophysites to St. Cyril seems so obvious. For this is closeness in words, and not in spirit... The source of Monophysitism is in dogmatic formulas, but in religious passion. The whole pathos of Monophysitism lies in the self-abasement of man, in the acute need to overcome the human as such. And hence the instinctive desire to distinguish the God-Man from men as sharply as possible, even in His humanity. This longing can manifest itself in different forms and with different strengths, depending on how enlightened and curbed is this sultry thirst for human self-abasement, which breaks through from the subconscious and dark depths. It is no accident that Monophysitism was so closely connected with ascetic fanaticism, with the ascesis of self-torture and anguish. And it is no accident that in Monophysite circles Origen's motifs about universal apocatastasis came to life again. In this respect, the lonely image of the Syrian mystic Bar-Sudaili is especially expressive, with his teaching about the universal restoration and the ultimate "consubstantiality" of all creation with God. Neoplatonic mysticism paradoxically crosses with Eastern fatalism. The apotheosis of self-abasement is the paradox of Monophysitism. And it is only from these psychological predispositions that the tragic history of Monophysitism can be understood... The belated epilogue of the Monophysite movement was the Monothelite controversy. It was a dispute about formulas, and about the formulas of church diplomacy rather than theology. However, it is not only a seductive tactical ambiguity that is evident in these formulas, but also a dangerous vagueness of theological vision or perception. That is why this dispute about words flared up with unprecedented bitterness and was sprinkled with the blood of Orthodox confessors... The Monothelites were supported and even inspired by the state power, concerned with the restoration of the religious unity of the disintegrating empire. An agreement with the Monophysites was an old dream of the emperors (cf. Basilisk's Encyclokon 472, Zeno's Henoticon 482, and Justinian's unional attempts). Now it was becoming an obsession. But the hierarchy also sought an agreement with the Monophysites, and not only out of insincere evasiveness. To many "synodites" the disagreement with the moderate Sevirians seemed insignificant and unimportant, it seemed almost a historical misunderstanding. Therefore, it seemed that it could and should be dispelled by wise compliance. Such a hope testified to the confusion of Christological ideas, to the vagueness of theological experience. In any case, the hope turned out to be deceptive... In this confusion lay the Monothelite danger... In the history of the Monothelite dispute, two periods can be distinguished. The first is the agreement of Cyrus of Alexandria with the local Sevirians ("Theodosians") in 632 (633). It was also accepted in Constantinople, Pat. Sergius, the main inspirer of the entire union enterprise, and was fixed by imperial decree. He was also approved by Pope Honorius. Unional anathemas were composed very evasively, but in Monophysite terminology. It was an obvious compromise. The Orthodox saw the main untruth of this agreement in the recognition that Christ performed both the Divine and the human "by a single Divine-human action" (μία θεανδρική ένεργεία). the defenders of the agreement insisted that they did not diverge from the "scroll" of Leo, that they were repeating his faith. And indeed, they did not mean "unity of action" in any way in the sense of "fusion." They clearly distinguished between the divine and the human, they referred unity not to "nature" but to "hypostasis", and never called the "one action" "natural", but always precisely "hypostatic"; the very definition of the "single action" as "Divine-human" already emphasized its "complexity." And yet, "one action" means much more than just "one person." The Monothelites did not notice this. The error of "monoenergism," of course, does not lie in the fact that the human in Christ is confessed to be "God-moving"—such a conclusion necessarily follows from the teaching of the unity of the Divine-human person or subject. And none of the Orthodox has ever challenged it. The error was that the Monothelites, following the Sevirians, understood this "movement of God" as the passivity of the human. They compared the action of the Divinity in the humanity of Christ with the action of the soul in the human body. This habitual analogy in this case became dangerous. For it did not emphasize the most important thing, the freedom of man in his very movement of God, while the body is precisely not free in its subordination to the soul. It was this difference that the Monothelites did not feel. They imagined the human too naturalistically. In any case, they refused to speak of "two natural actions," fearing to double their hypostasis by such recognition. The uniqueness of the human was not emphasized with sufficient force, precisely because it was not felt. And it must be added that "energy" means more than just action, but rather vitality and vitality. The Monothelites feared to invoke the "natural" vitality of the human in Christ, confusing it with "independence"; and therefore the human turned out to be inevitably passive for them... The second period in the history of the Monothelite controversy begins with the publication of the "Ekfesis" by Imp. Heraclius ("Exposition of the True Faith", 638). Here, instead of "one action," the "unity of will" or "willing" (έν θέλημα) is affirmed; At the same time, it is forbidden to talk about both "one" and "two actions". The new term was suggested by Pope Honorius. There was obvious ambiguity in the very formulation of the question. "Unity of will" can be understood in two ways. Or as a complete and perfect coincidence or agreement between human will and the Divine; or as the singularity of the Divine will, to the "beckoning" of which the "human" submits without its own or "natural" will. In other words, the unity of the will can mean either only the unity of the subject, or also the "weak-willedness" of the human. It remained unclear what exactly Patr wanted to say. Sergius, composing his "exposition". As if it were the former, since he motivates the recognition of the "one will" by the impossibility of admitting any bifurcation or "contradiction" in the will of the God-man. And at the same time he forbids speaking of two natural volitions, and by this he subtracts, as it were, the will from the "human" in Christ... In the Monothelite movement, two depths must be distinguished. Of course, Monothelitism arose as a diplomatic movement, as a search for a conciliatory compromise. And it can be said that this was a "political heresy", a heresy for political reasons. But the Monothelite movement is not exhausted by this. It deeply disturbed the Church. Monothelitism was a symptom of theological confusion. And for all the theological colorlessness of the Monothelite formulas, a new dogmatic question was sharply posed in them, albeit from the opposite. It was a question of human will. The whole Monothelite controversy was not possible only because there was no decisive answer to this question; And moreover, the question itself has not yet matured, has not yet burned into his consciousness. The temptation of quietism had not yet been overcome. The entire polemics of St. Maximus with the Monothelites boils down, strictly speaking, to the explanation that the will is a necessary element of human nature, that without will and freedom, human nature will be inauthentic and incomplete. From these anthropological premises, the Christological conclusion followed by itself. In the Monothelite movement the last secret of Monophysitism was exposed. It was a doubt about the human will. Something other than that of Apollinaris is not a temptation about human thought... In a sense, Monophysitism was a "dogmatic precursor to Islam" (as Spengler remarked)... The Monothelite movement ended in a silent retreat, a vain attempt to hide in silence (Typos of 648, with a ban on discussing the question of two or one will at all). But now there was no silence. The need for a decisive response became more and more acute. The answer was given at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680 (the Council ended in 681)... The Council repeated and supplemented the Chalcedonian Oros, and continued it in the following definition. "We also preach, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, that in Him there are two natural wills, that is, wills (δύо φυσικάς θελήσεις ήτоι θελήματα), and two natural actions (δύо φυσικας ένεργείας), — inseparable, unchanging, inseparable, inseparable. And the two natural wills are not opposite (to each other), as the impious heretics said, — let it not be! but His human will does not contradict or oppose, but should or rather is subject to His Divinity and omnipotent will" (έπόμενоν... καΐ μή άντιπίπτоν ή άντιπαλαΐоν, μάλλоν μέν оύν καΐ ύπоτασσόμενоν). This definition is taken almost literally from the epistle of Pope Agathon, sent to the council. And the pope repeated the definition of the Lateran Council of 649, which followed the teaching of the Monk Maximus. Therefore, the oros of the Sixth Council no longer required a new theological commentary. This commentary has already been given in advance, in the theological system of Maximus the Confessor.

Part 6

11. In the dogmatic disputes of the fifth and sixth centuries, the question of the significance of theological traditions was raised very sharply. The teaching of the Church is unchangeable; Therefore, an argument from antiquity, a reference to the past, has a special evidentiary value. And patristic testimonies are cited at this time and are taken into account in theological disputes with special attention. It was at this time that collections and collections of patristic texts were compiled. However, at the same time, the need for a critical attitude to the past is revealed. Not all historical legends can be accepted. For the first time this question arose in the fourth century, in connection with the teaching of Origen. But the overcoming of Origenism in Trinitarian theology was accomplished almost silently, and the name of Origen was mentioned very rarely. The question of the Antiochian tradition turned out differently. In the Nestorian controversies, suspicion fell on the entire theological past of the East. And in answer the opposite question was asked, about the Alexandrian traditions. With the passage of time, the need for a critical synthesis and revision of traditions became more and more obvious. And in the time of Justinian, the first attempt was made to sum up the historical results. This is precisely the meaning of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). It was convened for the judgment of the "three chapters," i.e., in essence, for the judgment of Antiochian theology. But it was no accident that a more general question was raised at the council, On the "chosen fathers" (έγκριτоι πατέρες). The list of the Fathers was suggested by the emperor in his letter, read at the opening of the council, and it was repeated at the third meeting of the council. This list explains the general and vague reference: "according to the teaching of the Fathers", "following the teaching of the Holy Fathers"... The names were named: Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, both Gregories, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophilus and Cyril, Proclus, Pope Leo. There is a certain intention in the choice of names. Of course, the Westerners were named for the sake of the Westerners, for they had never had a sensible influence in the East, and little was known about them there. But it is characteristic that of the "Eastern" only Chrysostom was named (in the paradoxical neighborhood of Theophilus!). This was already the trial of Vostok. The names of the great fathers of the fourth century do not require explanation. But there was a new poignancy in the enumeration of the Alexandrians: Theophilus, Cyril – the name of Proclus is also attached to this (of course, his "scroll to the Armenians"). This list reflects not only Justinian's personal tastes or sympathies. It is typical for the entire era. And Justinian himself only expressed the prevailing mood. He was not an innovator. He summed up the results. He strove to build and complete an integral system of Christian culture and life. This plan has its own greatness, and there is its own great untruth. In any case, Justinian always thought more about the Christian Kingdom than about the Church. His pathos was that the whole world should become Christian, the whole "inhabited earth," γή oίκоυμένη. In this he saw his calling, the sacred and theocratic calling of the universal Christian king. In his eyes, this calling was a special gift of God, a second gift independent of the priesthood. It is the tsar who is called upon to implement the system of Christian culture. In many ways, Justinian forcibly preempted events. He was in a hurry to complete the construction. This explains his unionist policy, his desire to restore the universal unity of the faith, which was broken after the Council of Chalcedon. Related to this is his interference in theological disputes in general. Justinian did not tolerate disagreements. And in disputes for the sake of unity, he more than once turned from a "most Christian sovereign" almost into Diocletian (a comparison of Pope Agapit in 536). Too often, the synthesis has degenerated into a violent and fruitless compromise. There are many tragic pages in the history of the Fifth Council, especially in its prehistory. It is partly true that the question of the "three chapters" arose almost by accident, that the controversy about the Antiochian traditions was initiated or revived artificially. Justinian had his own tactical motives for issuing the famous edict of 544. Contemporaries asserted that this edict was prompted and even composed by the Palestinian Origenists (Theodore Askida), in the hope of diverting attention from themselves. Such an explanation is too simple... The edict had "three chapters" — about Theodore of Mopeuestia and his books; on the objections of Theodoret against St. Cyril; about the "impious" letter to Marius Persus, known under the name of Ives of Edessa. The emperor proposed to anathematize them. The edict caused great excitement everywhere. It seemed to have been published in favor of the Monophysites. It was seen as a hidden condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon, although the emperor directly anathematized those who would interpret its "chapters" in this sense... The indignation was especially violent in Africa, in the West in general... The opponents of the edict did not so much defend the Antiochians as they considered the edict itself untimely and dangerous in practice. Is it convenient to revise and correct the decisions of previous councils? And a general question arose: is it possible at all to posthumously condemn brothers who have reposed in the world; have they not already been taken away from all human judgment, having been brought before the judgment of God? The supporters of the edict seemed to be "persecutors of the dead" ("necroioctes"). This is what was argued about the most. It was the Western ones who persisted. Pope Vigilius hesitated in confusion between the will of the emperor and the opinion of his Church. The dispute dragged on for many years. The emperor insisted on his own, and at times, indeed, he was transformed almost into Diocletian. In 551 he published a new "Confession" against the "three chapters", with 13 anathemas. Finally, in the year 553, the Ecumenical Council convened. It was not easy to induce the Western bishops, who had already gathered in Constantinople, to appear at the council... And the decrees of the council in the West were adopted only after a long and stubborn struggle... The Council recognized the possibility of posthumous condemnation, agreed with the arguments of the emperor and issued 14 anathemas, in which most of the anathemas of 551 were repeated. The decision was preceded by a detailed analysis of the suspected theological monuments and a comparison of them with indisputable examples of the Orthodox faith. The dangerous inaccuracy of the Antiochian books was clearly revealed. In a sense, this was a revision of the question of the Council of Ephesus, not of Chalcedon. One could argue about the timeliness of such a revision. It seemed to many that there was no need for this, that psychologically it could be beneficial only to the Monophysites. There seemed to be no need to fight the Nestorian danger when the danger was threatening from the opposite side. All these arguments were of a practical nature and the objectors did not go beyond formal rejections. But, whatever the motives that inclined Justinian to raise the question of the "three chapters", in essence he was right. That is why the Council accepted his anathemas. They refute and condemn in detail Nestorianism, but at the same time the false teachings of Apollinaris and Eutyches... It was a solemn confirmation of the Council of Ephesus and a new sentence on the "Easterners." It is very characteristic that Origenism was also condemned at the Council. The initiative of condemnation again belonged to the emperor. As early as 543, he issued 10 anathemas against Origen and all those who defend his impure opinions. This edict was adopted in Constantinople, in Palestine, and in Rome. Before the council, Justinian addressed the bishops with a new epistle about Origen. Apparently, the condemnation of Origen was proclaimed by the assembled fathers before the official opening of the council; That is why it is not mentioned in the Council's Acts. However, it is included in the anathemas of the council (anath. 11; cf. Trull. 1); and during the council itself it is mentioned by Theodore Askida. Soon after the council, Cyril of Scythopolis reports on the condemnation of Origen and the Origenists in his Life of Sava the Sanctified, and directly assimilates it to the Ecumenical Council. In addition to Origen, Didymus and Evagrius were condemned. Certain "impious opinions" expressed by Origen himself or his followers were condemned. The condemnation referred primarily to the Palestinian Origenists, who disturbed the peace in the monasteries there. As early as 542 they had already been condemned by Pat. Ephraim at the local council in Antioch. Even earlier, Antipater, bishop of Bostra (in Arabia), wrote against the Origenists. Palestinian Origenism was connected with Syriac (cf. Bar-Sudaili)... In his edicts, Justinian only repeated the accusations made from the localities. Shortly before the council, a special embassy arrived in Constantinople from the Lavra of the Monk Sava, with the hegumen Konon at its head; the monks presented a special report to the emperor with an exposition of "all impiety"... It is difficult to say how accurately Origen was quoted by his accusers. In any case, the opinions condemned do follow from its premises. The edict of 543 condemns the doctrine of pre-existence and the transmigration of souls, the doctrine of the eternal soul of Jesus, which had already been united with the Divine Logos before His incarnation, the doctrine that He was not only man for the sake of men, but also a seraphim for the seraphim, that He would one day be crucified for demons, the doctrine of apocatastasis, etc. More details in the epistle of the year 552. Here is an outline of the whole system. Its basic idea is that everything from eternity was created in perfect spirituality, and through falling away the present heterogeneous and corporeal world arose; The world process will end with the universal restoration and complete disembodiment of all that exists. This is Origen's own scheme. We can say for sure what attracted the Origenists of the sixth century in Origen's system. Cyril of Scythopolis tells about the division of the Palestinian Origenists into Isochrists and Protoctists. The names are very transparent. The Isochrists asserted that in the universal restoration all would be "equal to Christ" (ίσоι τώ Χριστώ), and this conclusion does follow directly from Origen's anthropological and Christological premises. The protoctists seem to have spoken not so much of apocatastasis as of pre-existence, and, above all, of the pre-existence of the soul of Jesus as the "first creation" (πρώτоν κτίσμα)... It is not difficult to understand why these ideas could spread in the monastic milieu; from them naturally follow conclusions of a practical nature about the paths of ascetic achievement... Again, it was possible to argue whether the question of Origen should be raised at an Ecumenical Council; but Origen's untruth was beyond doubt... The condemnation of the Origenisms at the Fifth Council was a condemnation of the inner temptations of the old Alexandrian theology, which had not yet lost its influence in certain and fairly wide circles. The prohibitions of the Fifth Council meant a judgment on the mistakes of the past. They testify to a turning point in theological consciousness. The Antiochian and Alexandrian traditions are interrupted. The Byzantine era began. 12. In the VI and VII centuries, church culture crystallizes. The enduring symbol of this epoch is the great temple of Wisdom, the Everlasting Word, in Constantinople. Creative tension is felt in some depths. It is clearer in asceticism than in theology. But out of the new ascetic experience is born a new theological synthesis, a new system. It is revealed to us in the works of St. Maximus. It is he, and not Damascene, who sums up the creative results of early Byzantine theology. This explains its powerful influence in the following centuries... Once again, the contradiction between the Empire and the Desert escalates. With catastrophic force it is exposed in the iconoclastic turmoil. A theocratic synthesis in the style of Justinian proved ambiguous and premature. And it falls apart. In this sense, the iconoclastic movement closes the era of early Byzantinism. But in persecution and in martyrdom, the dawn of a new life is already dawning...

St. Cyril of Alexandria

I. Life

Part 1

1. Very little is known about the life of St. Cyril before his accession to the Alexandrian cathedra. He apparently came from a respected Alexandrian family and was the nephew of Archbishop Theophilus. He was probably born in the late 70s of the IV century. Judging by the works of Saint Cyril, he received a broad and complete education. He is a good scholar of the Scriptures. He began his literary activity with experiments in allegorical interpretation in the field of the Old Testament. According to later and not very reliable news, Saint Cyril spent several years in wilderness solitude. In the year 403 he accompanied Theophilus to the famous council "under the oak", gathered against Chrysostom, and at that time he was already in the clergy. In 412, after the death of Theophilus, Cyril ascended the throne of Alexandria. At the same time, it was not without "popular confusion" and the intervention of military force was required. 2. And little is known about the first years of the bishopric of St. Cyril, before the beginning of the Nestorian disputes. Unpeaceful relations were immediately established between the archbishop and the Alexandrian prefect Orestes. According to the historian Socrates, "Orestes rejected the friendship of the bishop," "he hated the dominion of the bishops, because they took away much power from the rulers appointed by the king." In the disagreement between the bishop and the prefect, the Nitrian monks intervened, and they intervened very unsuccessfully. The prefect was attacked, he barely escaped from the dump. One of the attacking monks was subjected to a cruel punishment, from which he died. The archbishop gave his body over to an honorable burial, as a martyr for piety. "Modest people," says Socrates, "did not approve of this Cyril's zeal, for they knew that Ammonius was punished for his folly and died in agony not because he was forced to renounce Christ"... In his temperament, Saint Cyril was a man of struggle. And on the episcopal cathedra, he immediately showed himself as a passionate and authoritative man. Immediately he entered into a struggle with the Novatians, locked up all the Novatian churches located in Alexandria, took away from them the sacred utensils, and deprived their bishop Theopemptus of everything he had; At the same time, he took advantage of the allowance of the secular authorities. To the very first years of the episcopate of Saint Cyril belongs his struggle with the Jews of Alexandria. Relations between Christians and Jews gradually deteriorated in Alexandria. Finally, the Jews made a treacherous night attack on the Christians. "Irritated by this," says Socrates, "Cyril with a great multitude of people goes to the Jewish synagogues, takes them away, and drives them out of the city, and gives their property to the people for plunder." Orestes tried to defend the Jews, presenting to the Emperor Theodosius II the disadvantage of the total eviction of Jews from Alexandria, but his presentation was unsuccessful... At the same time, there was a popular indignation, during which Hypatia, a female philosopher, was killed. At the same time, many blamed the archbishop for this murder – hardly with reason. In any case, the episcopal activity of Saint Cyril took place in difficult and confused circumstances. Alexandria was generally a restless city. Saint Cyril tried to bring comfort with his pastoral words. He called sermons his usual and constant business. At one time, they were a great success – according to Gennadius of Massilia, they were memorized. Relatively few of them have survived to this day. In his early sermons, Saint Cyril persistently struggled against the rebellious spirit of the Alexandrians, denouncing robbery, denouncing the superstitions of the pagans and the dual faith of Christians. In later sermons, dogmatic questions overshadow questions of moral life. Especially interesting are the "Paschal Epistles" of St. Cyril, 29 of them have been preserved, for the years 414-442. 3. Nestorius, who entered the cathedra of Constantinople in 428, soon caused confusion and agitation by his Christological teaching. The turmoil that began in Constantinople soon spread beyond its borders. "Everywhere," wrote John of Antioch a little later, "both in places far from us and in places close to us, everything has been set in motion, everywhere one and the same thing is heard. A violent storm suddenly overtook the churches: everywhere the faithful are separated from one another from day to day as a result of this interpretation. The West, Egypt and even Macedonia decisively separated from unity" (with Nestorius). The news of Constantinople reached Alexandria very soon, probably from the apocrisiaries of the bishop of Alexandria, and already in the spring of 429 Cyril came out against Nestorius, although he did not mention him by name. In view of the fact that "thoughts alien to the truth began to spread in Egypt as well," St. Cyril issued a special and detailed "Epistle to the Monks" in explanation of Christological truths. After this, St. Cyril addressed an epistle to Nestorius himself, urging him to stop the "universal temptation" that his opinions and writings aroused. St. Cyril expressed himself softly and restrainedly, but Nestorius met this interference of the "Egyptian" in his affairs with great nervousness and irritation. The further development of the Nestorian dispute was greatly complicated by the constant rivalry and mutual distrust of Alexandria and Constantinople – many recalled the struggle between Theophilus and Blessed Chrysostom. At court, the intervention of St. Cyril was met with great discontent, and it seemed that the "Egyptian" was again violating the church peace that had been established with such difficulty. The supporters of Nestorius turned the emperor against Saint Cyril, just as the Arians had slandered the great Athanasius. With great sorrow Saint Cyril learned of this, and for all his natural passion he continued to act with restraint and peace. At the beginning of the year 430, he turned to Nestorius with a second dogmatic epistle, and in it he explained, on the basis of Tradition and the unchanging faith of the Church, the mystery of the Incarnation. This epistle was later approved at the Council of Ephesus. At the same time, Saint Cyril wrote about controversial questions to various persons, – to the emperor Theodosius ("On the Right Faith"), to his wife Eudoxia and to his sisters. In these epistles, he explains in great detail the dogma of the Incarnation, analyzes the wrong opinions about it and the objections of the Nestorians to the true idea of the Divine-human hypostasis of Christ. At the same time, St. Cyril cites a large number of patristic testimonies. Finally, he published five books against Nestorius. All these works of St. Cyril were widely distributed. The question of Nestorius' opinions was thus posed sharply and clearly. Apparently, Cyril instructed his apocrisiaries in Constantinople to demand that Nestorius formally subscribe to his dogmatic expositions of faith... To the Nestorian preaching, St. Cyril contrasted his confession. Not everyone and everywhere reacted equally to the positive and polemical aspects of the activity of Saint Cyril, and not all opponents of Nestorius were ready to unite around Saint Cyril. This greatly slowed down and hampered the victory of truth. At the same time, not everyone immediately understood the seriousness and importance of the impending dogmatic dispute. First of all, this was understood in Rome. Complete unanimity was immediately established between Pope Celestine and St. Cyril, and the Pope authorized the Archbishop of Alexandria to act on his behalf, as his "locum tenens" (vices gerens)... In Rome, they judged not only on the basis of the materials presented by St. Cyril, but Nestorius himself sent the pope a collection of his sermons. All this material was submitted to the conclusion of the famous Massilian presbyter John Cassian, who soon presented his "Seven Books on the Incarnation of Christ" to Rome. His imprisonment was very harsh. And in August 430 the pope, with a local council, declared the teaching of Nestorius heretical and instructed Saint Cyril to once again appeal to Nestorius with an exhortation — and if Nestorius did not repent and renounce within ten days, the pope declared him deposed and excommunicated. Through Saint Cyril the pope forwarded his epistles to Nestorius himself, to the clergy of Constantinople and to certain bishops of the East. In October 430, another local council met in Alexandria. He repeated the definitions of the Roman Council and supplemented them with a detailed formula of renunciation for Nestorius. These were the famous "chapters" (κεφαλαια) or anathemas of St. Cyril, 12 in number. At the same time, Saint Cyril addressed a letter to John of Antioch, to Juvenal of Jerusalem, and to Accacius of Berea, one of the most venerable and respected bishops of the East. On the basis of these letters and on the basis of Roman definitions, John of Antioch also addressed a warning message to Nestorius... But the anathematisms of St. Cyril were met in the East with bewilderment and even alarm. On the instructions of John of Antioch, they were dismantled by Andrew of Samosata and even more sharply by Theodoret of Cyrus. Against these objections, St. Cyril "had to" write a defense. His opponents cast a shadow of unrighteousness and Apollinarism on Cyril. At the same time, Nestorius stirred up the people of Constantinople against the "Egyptian", reminded them of the former hostility of Alexandria to Constantinople, of the persecution of Chrysostom raised by Theophilus of Alexandria. At the same time, Nestorius delayed the action of the Roman and Alexandrian conciliar decisions, persuading the emperor to convene an Ecumenical Council. The Sacra for the convocation of the council was issued on November 19 (430), the date of the convocation was set for Pentecost of the following year. In Constantinople, apparently, they feared that Cyril would evade and not appear at the Council. Meanwhile, he greeted the convocation of the council with joy, expecting from it a resolution of the matter. He actively prepared for the council, collecting materials for a dogmatic analysis of the questions raised.

Part 2

4. The activity of the Council of Ephesus proceeded in a difficult and difficult situation. The main fighter for Orthodoxy was St. Cyril, supported by the local bishop Memnon and Roman legates. Nestorius enjoyed the support of the emperor, and the comitus Candidianus, authorized by the emperor to open and observe order during the council, openly hindered the actions of the Orthodox. Immediately after his arrival at Ephesus, Saint Cyril began to speak both in assemblies of bishops and before the people with speeches and sermons on the subject of the dispute, denouncing Nestorius and defending himself against the suspicions and accusations raised against him. The Ephesian bishop Memnon openly took the side of Saint Cyril and forbade Nestorius and his retinue access to the city churches, evading communion with him, as with a man of doubtful faith... Relations immediately became acute... The opening of the Council was delayed due to the tardiness of the "Eastern"... After a two-week wait, Saint Cyril decided to begin the council, despite the sharp opposition of Candidian and Nestorius and the protests of his supporters. St. Cyril presided over the opening council. All dogmatic materials were considered. Nestorius did not appear at the council, and the council deputation was not allowed by the imperial guards to visit him at his house. As a result, Nestorius was declared deposed and excommunicated, and the second (apparently the third) epistle of Saint Cyril against him was accepted and approved. This was on June 22, 430. The resolution of this first assembly has 197 signatures (Nestorius' protest was signed by 10 other bishops). These decrees aroused the indignation of Candidian, who considered the assembly of June 22 an illegal assembly and prevented his fathers from communicating with Constantinople and other cities. However, he did not succeed in isolating the fathers of the council. Saint Cyril was able to send letters and messengers both to Alexandria and to Constantinople. The emperor took the side of Nestorius. Nestorius was also supported by the "Easterners" who finally arrived with John of Antioch. They did not recognize the opening of the council, met with its fathers unfriendly and inattentive, and, without discussing the question on the merits, together with the supporters of Nestorius, formed their own council, at which they condemned and deposed Cyril and Memnon, for "heretical heads" (propter haereticum prаedictorum cаpitulorum sensum) and for violating the peace of the Church. The bishops gathered in Ephesus were thus divided and split. The true council continued its activities even after the arrival of the "Easterners", despite their protests and the sharp opposition of the secular authorities. At this time the Roman legates arrived and entered into communion with Cyril and the council (meeting on July 11)... In one of his speeches at Ephesus, St. Cyril figuratively describes the activities of the council under the guise of fighting the ferocious and many-headed serpent, and depicts John of Antioch as a treacherous observer, who suddenly and unexpectedly takes the side of the enemy and begins to strike with arrows of hatred the wounded and exhausted fighters whom he should have helped. It is no exaggeration to say that St. Cyril endured the burden of the struggle more than others, and therefore he rightly said of himself: "I go out against him, drawing my spiritual sword. I'm fighting for Christ with the beast." In Ephesus he fought himself, and in Constantinople through his apocrisiarii and through the special ambassadors Potamon and Comarius, who remained in Constantinople after they had brought there the acts of the councils of Rome and Alexandria in 430. The emperor confirmed the deposition of Cyril and Memnon, but also confirmed the deposition of Nestorius, and counted on the reconciliation of the schismatics; to carry out these orders, the comitus John was sent. He arrived in Ephesus in early August. Cyril and Memnon were imprisoned, but they still managed to communicate with the outside world. Nestorius was also taken into custody. The true council protested against the actions of the emperor, objected to his interference in matters of faith. Both councils sent their representatives to Constantinople. These delegates met with the emperor in Chalcedon in mid-September. Here Kirill's supporters won. Nestorius was removed from Ephesus. A successor was set up and dedicated to him in the person of Saint Maximian. However, the "easterners" did not agree with this. Memnon and St. Cyril were released from prison. On October 31, 431, Saint Cyril returned to Alexandria, exhausted by the struggle, but in the halo of a confessor. The delegates of the true council remained in Constantinople, as a kind of temporary council under the new Archbishop of Constantinople. 5. After the Council of Ephesus, Saint Cyril continued the dogmatic struggle. The victory over Nestorius was achieved at the cost of a schism in the Church, behind which there was a theological misunderstanding between the "Egyptians" and the "Easterners". The next step was to reconcile and reunite. In addition, Nestorianism was not completely defeated, and the conciliar condemnation of Nestorius in the East was not accepted by everyone. The lie of Nestorianism for the "Easterners" has not yet been revealed. The theological struggle had to deepen still further, and the question arose with new acuteness about the meaning of the entire Antiochian theology, about the theology of Theodore and Diodorus as universally recognized teachers of the East. And at the same time, the question of Alexandrian theology was raised, of which St. Cyril was now a typical representative... Immediately after the Council, St. Cyril summed up the results of the struggle, in his "Defense Speech" to the emperor. He then proceeded to examine Theodoret's objections to his twelfth anathemas. The question of reunification with the "Easterners" was very acute. The "Easterners" made it a condition of reconciliation for Cyril to renounce all that he had written against Nestorius, "either in epistles, or in fragments, or in whole books," and, above all, of his "chapters." Of course, this was impossible, and would have meant a renunciation of the Council of Ephesus. Saint Cyril considered it impossible to deviate into dogmatic obscurity, which the "Easterners" proposed, to confine himself to the Nicene Creed, and to explain it with the Christological Epistle of Saint Athanasius to the Epictetus of Corinth. At the same time, Cyril diligently explained the meaning of his theological judgments. The work of reconciliation moved slowly. He also had to fight with court intrigues - to fight not only with words, but also with gold... Gradually, a group of moderates emerged in the east, agreeing to communion with Cyril, but stubbornly resisting the deposition of Nestorius. Few agreed to the deposition of Nestorius. There were not a few stubborn opponents of Saint Cyril and direct supporters of Nestorius. At the end of 432, Paul of Emesa was sent to Alexandria from the moderate majority of the "Easterners". He managed to come to an agreement with Cyril, and on Christmas 432 he was received into communion in Alexandria. At the beginning of 433, full unity in the Church was restored. St. Cyril celebrated it with his famous epistle to John of Antioch "Let the heavens rejoice"... However, this "reunification" with the East was not without controversy, both the stubborn Antiochians and the extreme Alexandrians objected. Kirill had to explain to the latter the meaning of "reunification". The East was also slowly calming down. Suspicions against St. Cyril were not extinguished. At the same time, disputes began about Theodore of Mopsuestia. Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, immediately after the Council of Ephesus, anathematized Theodore and urged Saint Cyril to do the same. The dispute that flared up, which spread to Constantinople, was stopped by the imperial prohibition "to undertake anything against the dead in peace with the Church." This was at that time for the good of the Church, since the condemnation of the Antiochian theologians threatened to disturb the tranquility of the East, which had not yet come to full peace. Saint Cyril refrained from harsh actions, but at the same time he worked on a book against Theodore and Diodorus, and did not conceal his negative attitude towards their "blasphemous tongue and pen". 6. The life of St. Cyril, as far as we know it, is almost completely dissolved in the history of his time. We know about him almost only as a fighter against Nestorianism, and this, indeed, took his main forces. From the surviving sermons and letters, one can get an idea of him as a persistent and firm pastor, who attentively followed the life of his flock and his diocese. After a turbulent life, he died in 444. In the memory of the Church, his image is forever imprinted as the image of a deep and sharp theologian. This was not hindered by the fact that for a long time his name, authority and words were abused by the Monophysites. For the Orthodox fighters against Monophysitism, St. Cyril always remained the "rule of faith," for Pope Leo and for Flavian. The Chalcedonian Fathers defined their faith as "the faith of St. Cyril." The Fifth Ecumenical Council relied on the judgment of Cyril in condemning the "three chapters." Saint Cyril was relied upon by Saint Maximus the Confessor in his struggle against the Monothelites, and by the Monk Anastasius of Sinai. Saint Cyril had less influence in the West. It was as if they were silent about him here, and in any case he was little known and remembered. St. Cyril is commemorated in the East on June 9 and together with St. Athanasius on January 18, and in the West on January 28.