to find a compromise by adapting and re-interpreting the terminology of the other side.

Why it did so cannot be answered on the basis of the Acta of the council. Did the council expect the parties in the future to seek a combination of the two Christologies without these loaded ideas? Certainly they are excluded because they seem unnecessary for the combination of both Christologies, which the council intends by introducing the Tome of Leo into the Definitio and in this way interpreting it. For it introduces the Tome only to the extent that it is compatible with both the synodal letters of Cyril and thus is to be interpreted on the basis of Cyril.

This is in accordance with the declaration introducing the Definitio fidei that 'combines' the Tome with both letters of Cyril 'in a certain accommodation'. In its Definitio the council wants to 'harmonise' Leo and Cyril with Cyril as the base and it wants to preserve what has been combined without explaining what makes the combination possible. Did the commission believe that it was sufficient to pass over in silence any justifications for the concepts of 'appropriation' and 'community'?

How deeply problematical the project of simply combining both Chris-tologies was emerged already during the council itself, when the bishops of Illyria and Palestine raised three doubts about the Tome of Leo, and, from the perspective of Cyrillian Christology, accused Leo of a latent Nestorianism.30

In reaction the leaders of the council attempted to avoid criticism of the Tome of Leo and to show Leo's agreement with Cyril. Quite apart from the different soteriologies (a topic that had been mooted at the council), the debate concerned Cyril's reception of the 433 formula of union, which the Illyrians and Palestinians could not reconcile in particular with two statements of the pope. On the one hand, it was a question of Leo's view of Christ's operations as an acting in which each of the natures effected what was proper to it 'in community with the other'. On the other hand, the issue was his statement that in Christ, despite 'the one person of God and human being', a duality is to be distinguished which establishes 'something common to God and human being' (commune in utroque). Leo cites as examples the ignominy (contumelia) common to both and the glory (gloria) common to both.

It is important to observe that, when the leaders of the council did not know how to proceed further, Theodoret of Cyrus, a renowned Antiochene theologian, referred to Cyril's Scholia de incarnatione, in order to point out the agreement between Leo and Cyril. With this move Theodoret named

30 For more detail on the following, see K.-H. Uthemann, 'Zur Rezeption', 582-93.

0 0

Post a comment