The major schism within the
Christian community dominated the theological debates from the 4th
and up to the 6-7th centuries. It was based on the opposition to
Nicene and Arian Christians (especially in Western Europe and North Africa,
where various Germanic states embraced Arianism). In the meantime, a new
division began emerging in the 5th century: the Nestorian
controversy.
This is especially important for the
Near East, where it still has consequences, namely the schism between the Orthodox/Catholic
churches and Nestorian communities (the Assyrian Church of the East and its
offshoots).
It all started with a debate
regarding the nature of Christ, opposing the Antiochene theological school
(following the Logos-anthropos i.e. “the
eternal Word assumed Jesus, the man” doctrine) and the Alexandrine one (Logos-sarx – “the Word became flesh”;
O’Collins, 2009, p. 188).
The Controversy
The leaders of the two schools of
thought were the Syrian Nestorius (386-450), Patriarch of Constantinople since
428, and Cyril of Alexandria (376-444), Patriarch of Alexandria since 412.
Nestorius’s
Views
The big theological problem was how
exactly Divinity (the eternal Word) could coexist with the human nature of
Jesus. The most common theological explanation assimilated the God-Man
relationship in Christ with the soul-flesh relationship in any human being.
However, the difference between those substances is huge: an incomplete
substance (the soul) versus a complete one (Deity).
The answer Nestorius gave to this
unsatisfactory definition was to defend Christ’s integral humanity and Divinity
by supporting two different and complete natures in conjunction (synapheia) with one another, within the
same person (prosōpon, O’Collins, 2009, p. 190).
Although Nestorius did not go any
further with this separation, his opponents accused him of trying to suggest a
mere assumption of the human Jesus by God, with just a moral unity among them.
The practical consequences for the
Church were significant. The events occurring to the human Jesus could not be
also attributed to the Logos. The
best examples here are the birth (the Theotokos
– “Mother of God” title given to Mary, mentioned by Luke, 1:43: “And why has
this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?”; NRSV Bible) and
the sacrifice on the cross.
The problem got worse as Nestorius
and his followers gradually shifted towards the belief in two prosōpa, (persons), or even “two Sons” (O’Collins,
2009, p. 195). This prompted a reaction from the rest of the Church.
Cyril’s
Views
Cyril supported the idea of the Word
of God becoming flesh, thus getting accused by the Nestorian camp of
unreasonably “mixing” the Divine and human nature.
“Hypostatically united” was his main
characterization of Jesus’ nature, the Divine and human in one person and
hypostasis (allowing, thus, the attribution of Jesus’ life events to the Logos), but rejecting any “mixing” of
the two (O’Collins, 2009, p. 193).
However, he often shifted between
one and two natures (physeis), a term
that would soon become a central issue in theological debates. While, at the
beginning of his activity, he was in favor of one single physis, he later changed to two natures, while still admitting a
significant difference among the two natures forming the union.
The Resolution:
Ephesus and Chalcedon
In June, 431, the Council of
Ephesus, opened by Cyril himself and bringing together mainly his followers,
condemned and excommunicated Nestorius and proclaimed Cyril’s second letter to
Nestorius completely consonant with the Nicene Creed.
Patriarch John of Antioch,
supporting Nestorius, organized his own Council, condemning Cyril and declaring
the schism official. He and some of his adepts later reconciled with Cyril.
Cyril won the dispute, but the
uncertainty regarding the one or two physeis
and the way they got united caused another major rift. Soon after Cyril died,
in 444, Eutyches (archimandrite of a monastery in Constantinople) claimed that
the difference between the Word and the human nature was so serious that the
former absorbed the latter (a doctrine called monophysitism).
The rise of monophysitism led to the
Council of Chalcedon. Here, in November, 451, Cyril’s second letter to
Nestorius and the one to John of Antioch were confirmed again. They were made part
of the official dogma: two natures in one person, human and Divine, Jesus being
consubstantial (homoousios) with the
Father and mankind to the same degree. Both natures were complete and in no way
mixed, changed by the union or somehow separated (O’Collins, 2009, p. 196).
.jpg)
In the words of The Council of
Chalcedon’s Definition of Faith, “the
difference of the natures is not destroyed because of the union, but, on the
contrary, the character of each nature is preserved and comes together in one
person and one hypostasis” (in Norris, 1980, p. 159).
This excluded both the doctrines of
Nestorius and Eutyches, deepening the rift with the Church of the East and
opening a new rift with what were going to become the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
No comments:
Post a Comment