It is interesting to observe that the translated text, unlike the Greek original, in some places favours a Dyophysite understanding. This is especially the case for those passages in which the translation speaks of operationes communes and communis passio. Pope Leo integrated these phrases into his own Christology, which otherwise followed the lead of Augustine.25 It was precisely on account of these phrases, included in his Tomus adFlavianum, that Leo would encounter criticism at the Council of Chalcedon (451).

Cyril writes: 'the Logos appropriates to himself, on the one hand everything that belongs to the flesh ..., but on the other hand communicates to his flesh the work of that divine power, which is in him'. In this manner the Logos could bring about his miracles in the flesh. In the Latin translation sent to Leo, the communicating - koinopoieisthai - of divine power is transmitted as a realising of'common operations' and as what 'the divine majesty together with the flesh effects'. Moreover, in these Scholia, Cyril continued justifying that 'the flesh' and therefore the passions are proper to the Logos by employing the conception of the 'appropriation' of everything human. In the translation, however, it is said that the passion is something common to the Logos and his flesh, namely communis passio. This has little to contribute to the theme of 'what is common to God and the human being', but is rich in consequences.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon

The events leading up to the Council of Chalcedon here interest us only insofar as they contribute directly to an understanding of the council's Definitio fidei.

On the way to Chalcedon The confessional formulae of the Constantinopolitan patriarchs Proclus (sed. 434-46) and Flavian (sed. 446-9) need to be mentioned first. In a homily (CPG 5822), Proclus made a distinction between the concepts of nature and hypostasis.26 In the one Son he sees two natures united in one single hypostasis.27 Flavian added the concept of the one prosopon to that of the one hypostasis. In order to distance themselves from Nestorius, both combined two Christolo-gies and in this way they both interpreted the concept approved at Ephesus as 'union according to the hypostasis'.

Opposition from both camps to the union of 433 triggered the dispute about Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia and consequently about the

25 On Augustine's Christology, see H. R. Drobner, Person-Exegesis und Christologie.

0 0

Post a comment