Nestorius on Mary as the Mother of God

Nestorius of Constantinople, Second epistle to Cyril of Alexandria WRITTEN BY NESTORIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Nestorius sends greeting in the Lord to the most religious and reverend fellow-minister Cyril. I pass over the insults against us contained in your extraordinary letter. They will, I think, be cured by my patience and by the answer which events will offer in the course of time. On one matter, however, I cannot be silent, as silence would in that case be very dangerous. On that point, therefore avoiding longwindedness as far as I can, I shall attempt a brief discussion and try to be as free as possible from repelling obscurity and undigestible prolixity. I shall begin from the wise utterances of your reverence, setting them down word for word. What then are the words in which your remarkable teaching finds expression ?

“The holy and great synod states that the only begotten Son, begotten of God the Father according to nature, true God from true God, the light from the light, the one through whom the Father made all things, came down, became incarnate, became man, suffered, rose.”

These are the words of your reverence and you may recognise them. Now listen to what we say, which takes the form of a brotherly exhortation to piety of the type of which the great apostle Paul gave an example in addressing his beloved Timothy: “Attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. For by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers”. Tell me, what does “attend” mean? By reading in a superficial way the tradition of those holy men (you were guilty of a pardonable ignorance), you concluded that they said that the Word who is coeternal with the Father was passible. Please look more closely at their language and you will find out that that divine choir of fathers never said that the consubstantial godhead was capable of suffering, or that the whole being that was coeternal with the Father was recently born, or that it rose again, seeing that it had itself been the cause of resurrection of the destroyed temple. If you apply my words as fraternal medicine, I shall set the words of the holy fathers before you and shall free them from the slander against them and through them against the holy scriptures.

“I believe”, they say, “also in our Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son”. See how they first lay as foundations “Lord” and “Jesus” and “Christ” and “only begotten” and “Son”, the names which belong jointly to the divinity and humanity. Then they build on that foundation the tradition of the incarnation and resurrection and passion. In this way, by prefixing the names which are common to each nature, they intend to avoid separating expressions applicable to sonship and lordship and at the same time escape the danger of destroying the distinctive character of the natures by absorbing them into the one title of “Son”. In this Paul was their teacher who, when he remembers the divine becoming man and then wishes to introduce the suffering, first mentions “Christ”, which, as I have just said, is the common name of both natures and then adds an expression which is appropriate to both of the natures. For what does he say ? “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus who though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped”, and so on until, “he became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”. For when he was about to mention the death, to prevent anyone supposing that God the Word suffered, he says “Christ”, which is a title that expresses in one person both the impassible and the passible natures, in order that Christ might be called without impropriety both impassible and passible impassible in godhead, passible in the nature of his body.

I could say much on this subject and first of all that those holy fathers, when they discuss the economy, speak not of the generation but of the Son becoming man. But I recall the promise of brevity that I made at the beginning and that both restrains my discourse and moves me on to the second subject of your reverence. In that I applaud your division of natures into manhood and godhead and their conjunction in one person. I also applaud your statement that God the Word needed no second generation from a woman, and your confession that the godhead is incapable of suffering. Such statements are truly orthodox and equally opposed to the evil opinions of all heretics about the Lord’s natures. If the remainder was an attempt to introduce some hidden and incomprehensible wisdom to the ears of the readers, it is for your sharpness to decide. In my view these subsequent views seemed to subvert what came first. They suggested that he who had at the beginning been proclaimed as impassible and incapable of a second generation had somehow become capable of suffering and freshly created, as though what belonged to God the Word by nature had been destroyed by his conjunction with his temple or as though people considered it not enough that the sinless temple, which is inseparable from the divine nature, should have endured birth and death for sinners, or finally as though the Lord’s voice was not deserving of credence when it cried out to the Jews: “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. He did not say, “Destroy my godhead and in three days it will be raised up.”

Again I should like to expand on this but am restrained by the memory of my promise. I must speak therefore but with brevity. Holy scripture, wherever it recalls the Lord’s economy, speaks of the birth and suffering not of the godhead but of the humanity of Christ, so that the holy virgin is more accurately termed mother of Christ than mother of God. Hear these words that the gospels proclaim: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” It is clear that God the Word was not the son of David. Listen to another witness if you will: “Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ. “ Consider a further piece of evidence: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be with child of the holy Spirit.” But who would ever consider that the godhead of the only begotten was a creature of the Spirit? Why do we need to mention: “the mother of Jesus was there”? And again what of: “with Mary the mother of Jesus”; or “that which is conceived in her is of the holy Spirit”; and “Take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt”; and “concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh”? Again, scripture says when speaking of his passion: “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh”; and again “Christ died for our sins” and “Christ having suffered in the flesh”; and “This is”, not “my godhead”, but “my body, broken for you”.

Ten thousand other expressions witness to the human race that they should not think that it was the godhead of the Son that was recently killed but the flesh which was joined to the nature of the godhead. (Hence also Christ calls himself the lord and son of David: “ ‘What do you think of the Christ ? Whose son is he ?’ They said to him, ‘The son of David.’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘How is it then that David inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand”?’”. He said this as being indeed son of David according to the flesh, but his Lord according to his godhead.) The body therefore is the temple of the deity of the Son, a temple which is united to it in a high and divine conjunction, so that the divine nature accepts what belongs to the body as its own. Such a confession is noble and worthy of the gospel traditions. But to use the expression “accept as its own” as a way of diminishing the properties of the conjoined flesh, birth, suffering and entombment, is a mark of those whose minds are led astray, my brother, by Greek thinking or are sick with the lunacy of Apollinarius and Arius or the other heresies or rather something more serious than these.

For it is necessary for such as are attracted by the name “propriety” to make God the Word share, because of this same propriety, in being fed on milk, in gradual growth, in terror at the time of his passion and in need of angelical assistance. I make no mention of circumcision and sacrifice and sweat and hunger, which all belong to the flesh and are adorable as having taken place for our sake. But it would be false to apply such ideas to the deity and would involve us in just accusation because of our calumny.

These are the traditions of the holy fathers. These are the precepts of the holy scriptures. In this way does someone write in a godly way about the divine mercy and power, “Practise these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. This is what Paul says to all. The care you take in labouring for those who have been scandalised is well taken and we are grateful to you both for the thought you devote to things divine and for the concern you have even for those who live here. But you should realise that you have been misled either by some here who have been deposed by the holy synod for Manichaeism or by clergy of your own persuasion. In fact the church daily progresses here and through the grace of Christ there is such an increase among the people that those who behold it cry out with the words of the prophet, “The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the water covers the sea”. As for our sovereigns, they are in great joy as the light of doctrine is spread abroad and, to be brief, because of the state of all the heresies that fight against God and of the orthodoxy of the church, one might find that verse fulfilled “The house of Saul grew weaker and weaker and the house of David grew stronger and stronger”.

This is our advice from a brother to a brother. “If anyone is disposed to be contentious”, Paul will cry out through us to such a one, “we recognize no other practice, neither do the churches of God”. I and those with me greet all the brotherhood with you in Christ. May you remain strong and continue praying for us, most honoured and reverent lord.

Catholics have a defined teaching authority, while Evangelical doctrine is up to the individual Evangelical believer.

What the denomination or pastor teaches is not binding on the consciences of lay Evangelicals.

I would say you raise a false analogy, as while Catholics have a defined teaching authority, this is effectively only over their own particular flock, as it can only discipline its own insofar as they want to be formally part of it. The EOs may subscribe to most of what Rome teaches, but critically differs on such a prime doctrine as papal infallibility and jurisdiction, and thus they are held to be in schism by the Roman (or Latin) church, though they are substantially unified enough to be called Catholic, due to A.S.

And while RCs must give assent of faith to some core teaching, and lesser degrees on others, they can and do differ on a great many things, including how many teachings require assent of faith, while such rarely see no real discipline on a number of things they are not sppsd to differ on.

While there is a great variation in Protestantism, that is not a church, but like Rome particular Protestant denoms or churches likewise typically have a supreme teaching office, and contrary to your statement, they, or evangelical denoms that best hold to classic salvific essentials, are bound to hold to certain core teachings and morality for membership or least for pastoral duties. You will not get far in a S. Baptist, Calvary chapel, if you deny the Deity of Christ, etc. or practice adultery.

This overall commitment is shown in a common front against cults who deny such core teachings, as well as against Catholic Traditions of men, as both are product of sola eccelesia, that of the church magisterium being effectively supreme over Scripture, and another source being held as equal to it.

Thus both Catholic "denominations" (being self governing) and Protestant ones have their own magisteriums, requiring assent to certain core essentials if one will be recognized as a member of such, though in Rome that can be quite liberal as Ted Kennedy exampled, as it can be in esp. liberal Protestant ones.

Below is an illustration from two different sources (the first seems Orthodox) of both variety of Catholics and this effectively limited jurisdiction, even if there can be substantial agreement.

The first Council called by a Pope was the Lateran Council I in 1123. To resolve the Great Schism, the Council of Constance, 1414-1418, was called by the Emperor Sigismund; but once a single line of Popes was secure in Rome again, they denied that the Emperor had any authority to call Councils. The last Emperor in any position, and with any need, to call a Council, Charles V, deferred to the Pope -- who then was the one to call the Council of Trent, 1545-1563. At the time of Justinian, the Pope was regarded as primus inter pares, first among equals of the Patriarchs, but that was all. The Patriarch of Constantinople was made second in rank, although this was a bit resented by the other, older Patriarchates.

The diagram at right gives some impression of how the One Catholic Church has broken up -- setting aside the Protestant fragmention of the See of Rome in the West, which of course would require a complex diagram in its own right. The convention of calling the Latin Church "Catholic" and the Eastern Churches "Orthodox" obscures the circumstance that katholikê, "universal," signifies the Church of the Roman Empire, whose Emperor and Patriarch in Constantinople the Bishop of Rome excommunicated in 1054 AD. The Greek Church therefore still uses katholikê, while the Churches that fell out over one of the Ecumenical Councils, especially the Nestorians and Monophysites, would be heterodox, not "Orthodox," to both the Latin and Greek branches of the Catholica Ecclesia. While the Coptic and Syrian Churches broke away over the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, there remained a continuous line of Greek Patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, even as the Patriarch of Constantinople proselytized Bulgaria, Russia, and other states in the Balkans. Beginning with the Crusades, the Church of Rome sought converts over the same territory; and so we see Latin/Catholic churches and counter-churches swarming around the older, Orthodox ones. The counter-churches double up with the existing Orthodox churches, but sometimes a Catholic church exists, e.g. in the Ukraine or Ruthenia, where a separate Orthodox one doesn't. The Popes claim doctrinal authority, while the doctrine of Constantinople is based on the Church Councils.

Source: http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#popes

The diagram at right gives some impression of how the One Catholic Church has broken up -- setting aside the Protestant fragmention of the See of Rome in the West, which of course would require a complex diagram in its own right. The convention of calling the Latin Church "Catholic" and the Eastern Churches "Orthodox" obscures the circumstance that katholikê, "universal," signifies the Church of the Roman Empire, whose Emperor and Patriarch in Constantinople the Bishop of Rome excommunicated in 1054 AD. The Greek Church therefore still uses katholikê, while the Churches that fell out over one of the Ecumenical Councils, especially the Nestorians and Monophysites, would be heterodox, not "Orthodox," to both the Latin and Greek branches of the Catholica Ecclesia. While the Coptic and Syrian Churches broke away over the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, there remained a continuous line of Greek Patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, even as the Patriarch of Constantinople proselytized Bulgaria, Russia, and other states in the Balkans. Beginning with the Crusades, the Church of Rome sought converts over the same territory; and so we see Latin/Catholic churches and counter-churches swarming around the older, Orthodox ones. The counter-churches double up with the existing Orthodox churches, but sometimes a Catholic church exists, e.g. in the Ukraine or Ruthenia, where a separate Orthodox one doesn't. The Popes claim doctrinal authority, while the doctrine of Constantinople is based on the Church Councils.

(http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#popes)

A favored argument against Sola Scriptura frequently used by our friends in the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is "Just look at Protestantism! It's a mess, of ~~22,000~~ ~~25,000~~ ~~30,000~~ ~~33,000~~ 58 gazillion denominations!"
What are they saying? Mostly that Sola Scriptura as a rule of faith is insufficient to bring about institutional, organisational unity to the church of Jesus Christ. And of course, Christ would obviously want His church to have institutional, organisational unity! Evidently, setting the Scripture alone up as the sole infallible final rule of faith for the church doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to. Ergo, Sola Scriptura is false.

I've created this crude and very maladroit drawing to illustrate.

Let's analyse, then, the alternatives of Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Now, we of course like to accuse them of Sola Ecclesia; that is, we contend that their sole infallible final rule of faith is Whatever The Church® Says. But they don't like it when we say that, so let's be conciliatory and lay the contention aside. Their "real" rule of faith is Apostolic Tradition, which includes written and unwritten tradition from the apostles, both in Scripture and in other places such as the lived-out faith of the church, the liturgies, the writings of church fathers down through the years, etc.
Notice that, like the Scripture, this too forms a corpus with limits. The Da Vinci Code is not part of Apostolic Tradition. Neither is the Qur'an, nor is The Audacity of Hope (though, depending on which Roman or EO priest you ask, that last one might be close). We and others have contended many times, rightly, that the limits to the Roman and EO Canons of Scripture are not only poorly defined but actually non-existent. It is also indisputable that one's presupposition of an infallible interpreter (whether she be Rome or EOC) will govern which little-t traditions are actually accepted, promoted if you will, to Big-T Sacred Apostolic Tradition, thus forming the basis for Roman or Orthodox dogma, leaving the little-t traditions to rot by the wayside, relegated to "Well, he was just speaking as a private theologian" or "That was just his opinion" status.
But let's leave all of that aside and grant that there is one big and awe-inspiring God-given Verbum Dei corpus of Scripture and Tradition that is the proper rule of faith for the church of Jesus Christ.

The problem is obvious - Rome, sedevacantists, traditionalist Catholics, Pope Michael-ists, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and various other churches with incompatible teachings all appeal to this set and limited corpus of Scripture and Tradition. It would appear that the criticism against Sola Scriptura of multiple denominations applies to the Roman and EO rule of faith as well.

The Romanist or Orthodox might object: "But we're not in communion with those schismatics/heterodox/heretics!" Now, what if I were to reply, as a member of a Southern Baptist church, that, have no fear my non-Sola Scripturist friends, my church holds that everyone who's not a member of a Southern Baptist church is a schismatic/heterodox/heretic too? Would that make our Romanist or Orthodox friends feel better?
Or would that make them criticise us even more strongly: "See? You Sola Scripturists can't even hold communion with each other!"? Yep, my money's on that one, too. We're darned if we do and darned if we don't, but somehow if the Romanists or Orthodox don't hold communion with these other churches, that's just fine. Such special pleading is just...special.

So let me break this down as clearly as I can. "The Protestant Church" does not exist. Self-named "Protestant churches" vary so widely in doctrine and authority as to make points of comparison impossible to ascertain. If you want to compare unity and disunity, compare the adherences to the competing rules of faith. Or compare churches, like the Roman Church to the Southern Baptist Convention or the Pope Michael Catholic Church to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. What do we find, if we do this? How different from each other are the churches that hold to Scripture alone as rule of faith, and how different from each other are the churches that hold to "Sacred Apostolic Tradition" as rule of faith? Answer that and you'll know one reason why we consider all this talk about how Tradition and Magisterium make for superior church unity to be just that - talk.

Apparent embrace of Nestorianism and Apollinarianism?

What was the result at Ephesus but a synthesis of Apollinarian thesis, and the dyophysite anti-thesis or position, which in the mouth of Nestorious (who's Eastern Church had had it's own long fight with the Apollinarians, independent of Alexandrian contentions with the same) was seen to have inherent flaws of it's own, thus chopped off, as was the monophysite school of thought, much adjusted?

Two competing theories, one arising as much in opposition to the first, then a careful blend of two, separating out unwanted elements of each of them, while otherwise keeping intact much else preexisting (as revealed in the Word) which needed to remain. Quite brilliant, actually, when one looks at it all.

It seems apparent to me that among other things, this sort of casual flinging about of such charges as Nestorian and Apollinarian not only is inaccurate, but invokes also the personal spirit or style of Cyril, in his own rather deceitful underhanded dealings with Nestorious, in hopes of invoking a replay of Nestorious' own hastiness for which he was anathematized. That's the nasty downside of the business. 1500 years of schism was the result. It was not all Nestorious' fault, although he did do enough to have the whole deal hung on him. A failed anathema was just icing on the cake...

From one of the very links provided by yourself elsewhere;

¹⁰

In light of the above, and also in view of how the Alexandrian usage of "hypostasis" differed in subtle yet not insignificant ways to how the term was also used, and understood to mean by those of the Eastern Church in regards to the particularly mentioned Christological controversies prior to the councils at Epheses, to continue with attempts to apply such labels as Nestorian and Apollinarian broadly, shows not only some backwardness as to understanding, but can also been seen as yet more of the objectionable tactics employed by Cyril, which helped much guarantee that the outcome would be divisive in nature.

They employed a different definition of a key word. Then Nestorious was hit with (a pronouncement equaling) verdict already decided upon before he got there. All that was left was the formality of a hearing. With the differing definitions, how was he to know that Alexandrian hypostasis meant "underlying" as in foundational, while his own contingent had long used hypostasis more as an understanding of the union of body and soul -- more precisely the "complete being". What the Alexandrians did upon short notice (no notice, in actuality) is to take the 'two natures' position, and put it atop an undergirding, "one being" idea. All the while the Nestorians saw the "one being" of hypostasis as being the complete being, so the two natures idea which amongst themselves had been developed to the point of overdevelopment, left this strange blending of the ideas indecipherable to them at the time. It all moved too fast.

Then, the reapproachment went far too slow. 1500 years it took for them to re-visit the controversy, after which it can be seen that Nestorius was not treated as a brother, but got the bums rush. He perhaps should stand now to be partially rehabilitated, and in the very least should be much forgiven. He remained a Catholic at heart to the very end, devout in his own faith to the Lord.

Those seeing Nestorians or Apollinarians under every bush not in their own yard, are showing their own pride and prejudice (with not a little ignorance themselves) by not recognizing what portions of the two extremes went into the natural planting, and later cultivation of one of the shrubs in their very own hedgerow.

For struggle with Apollinarians, in putting down the extreme positions by those in Alexandria, and somewhat independently by those in Assyria, and the stylized development of the "two natures" descriptive use, in which the Eastern church took the lead, is part of the background needed to be taken into account as part of the setting and leading up to the subsequent events. Ignoring such now is rather inexcusable.

It is needlessly confrontational to continue to insist upon demonizing Protestants in general with these ancient controversies, as they by and large accept and hold as their own view, a very similar, albeit abbreviated when not nearly identical synthesis of the opposing monophysite and dyophysite positions which eventually coalesced (became synthesized) into that which was proclaimed by the councils at Epheses, later objections to the process itself, notwithstanding.

"Fully man, yet fully God, in one and the same person", as it is often taught in other than formally accepted as "Catholic" settings.

The current fashion among many here to see all sorts of heresy inherit in others by way of assumed implication as to what the "other" is up to, reminds us of the human limitations, passions and pride so much in evidence at the goings-on at Ephesus, and the divisions which resulted.

Should we seek to replay those needless divisions, to gain control of language which we may beat others over the head with? Could we imagine one of the Apostles yanking the bread from Christ's hand, then beating one of his brethren over the head with it? What would Jesus say to that, even if it had been Judas taking the beating?

The fact that those historical events [Ephesus] took place over disputation over the Bread Of Life himself, is most regrettable if not grievous. To celebrate and renew the acrimony which was brought to this breaking of the bread amongst themselves, risks precluding one from being able to fully take part in the uncorrupted meal itself, as was reminded to earlier generations of Christians, in the Didache. For the sacrifice becomes polluted by the lack of forgiveness and the continuation of offenses, making the eating of it (particularly the forced eating of it) poisonous to the partakers thereof.

Or did Jesus plainly say, "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees" just because those with him at the time had no bread?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.