of the Council of Ephesus in 431 not as final, but rather as inaugurating a process of clarification, for which Cyril's understanding of the 433 formula of union is important. This opened a way for the synod to interpret Cyril himself and, at the same time, on the basis of Cyril to formulate its own Definitio fidei28 It also gave the synod the possibility, as it itself says, 'rightly' to combine Pope Leo's Tomus ad Flavianum with Cyril's two synodal letters 'in a certain accommodation'. Therefore, at the same time it could condemn as heresies the teaching of both Eutyches and Nestorius.

For this reason, the council juxtaposed phrases from Cyril and Leo in its Definitio fidei, which is formulated in a highly differentiated manner, consisting of a single sentence whose linguistic unevenness indicates a hasty redaction.

The Definitio reads - with some abbreviations - as follows:

1 So following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the one and the same . . . truly God .. . and truly human being consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father as regards his divinity

5 and the same consubstantial (homoousios) with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin [Hebrews 4.15] . . . one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten acknowledged in two natures, unconfused (asygchytos), unchanged, undivided (adihairetos), unseparated;

10 at no point was the difference (diaphora) taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and come together into a single person, that is29 hypostasis; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Lord Jesus Christ,

15 just as the prophets taught from the beginning,

. . . and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us and as the creed of the fathers [Nicaea] handed it down to us.

The Definitio combines Leo's confession preserving the particularity of the two natures (ll. 11-12), directed against Eutyches, with the words of Cyril. The Cyrillian phrases defend his own view of the union, emphasised against Nestorius, against the misunderstanding that 'the difference of the natures is removed on account of the union' (l. 10). The words inserted justify the statement in the Definitio about Christ's two natures. Thus Cyril was the primary source and Leo's statements were understood through Cyril. At the

28 In this sense the Christology of Chalcedon is Cyrillian. Cf. the fundamental work of A. de Halleux, 'La definition christologique a Chalcedoine'.

29 The kai employed by the council is a kai explicative, which interprets Leo's concept of person by Cyril's terminology of hypostasis.

0 0

Post a comment