Cyril’s Legacy

Cyril’s theology was destined to have great implications for the future development of Christianity.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, John McGuckin

McGuckin offers a succinct outline of Cyril’s legacy, from the time of Ephesus in 431 through the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. While he clearly finds Cyril in the language adopted at Chalcedon and in subsequent debates, he also demonstrates an understanding of why it was confusing – in fact, to the point that it took over 120 years to sort out.

Again, I know I have somewhat exhausted this topic; therefore, I will stick to only key points (even if repetitive), or points not made before (at least to my memory).

Cyril’s construct had not depended on its formulas, rather on the clear passion of its narrative of the descent of the divine person, to save.

I find this the most crucial statement as to why the controversies were so strong and took so long to resolve (within the Churches that accepted, either initially or later, Chalcedon).

Read that again, and consider: Cyril was not concerned about formulas, yet everyone is using Cyril to argue formulas. Cyril was concerned about efficacious salvation – in other words, it was clear the who, what, and why of Christ had to be in order to save. As long as he felt this was protected, the precise usage of words that different people understood differently anyway were secondary to him.

Am I making too much of this one sentence from McGuckin? Perhaps. Except it is a theme that has been building throughout this book and through all of my studies on these Christological conversations. Plus, McGuckin offers:

As a result of the conflict over terminology from 431 to 433 [and, I will state, all the way through 553 even for those Churches that accepted Chalcedon], even Cyril had come to admit that if his opponents agreed on the central principle of single subjectivity, he would admit a flexibility in the terms he used to describe that event.

And this is why, when debating the precise terminology, everyone on both sides of the Chalcedonian divide can take comfort in Cyril. McGuckin offers a brief overview again of the terminology, but we have ploughed this ground enough.

Here is where Pope Leo steps into the discussion. He would compose his definitive solution to the Christological problem.

The Roman tradition was an element that had so far played little role in what hitherto had been mainly an Alexandrian – Syrian debate. When the Roman digest [the Tome] was presented, however, it seemed, to the great surprise of many eastern bishops, that it was much closer to the Syrian perspective than that of Alexandria, whose policy Rome had been so adamantly defending in the time of Cyril himself.

This should not be forgotten: when Cyril was alive, Rome was adamant that Cyril’s position was sound. In fact, Rome left it to Cyril to deal with Nestorius directly. Yet, one cannot read the Tome and be at least cautious about some of its terminology.

The council in Ephesus in 449, later named the Robber Council, restated Cyril’s doctrine, without including any lines drawn by either Proclus or Leo. Dioscorus, who presided over this council, privately read Leo’s Tome “with a scandalized disbelief, that soon turned to hostility.” He refused to acknowledge its existence, let alone have it read at the council.

He thus saved himself the embarrassment of having to censure the Pope in synodical process at the same time as deposing two other patriarchs.

McGuckin sees the Tome in essential harmony with Cyril’s points, but still sees it as a “diminution and regression from Cyril’s sense of the personal unity of the hypostasis.” Many found it in opposition to Cyril’s fourth anathema:

If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.

From Leo’s Tome:

For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.

With a plain reading, this seems clearly the case – Leo’s Tome advocates the opposite of the fourth anathema. But plain reading doesn’t suffice when the author is less concerned about precise terminology and when terminology is not yet agreed among and between the actors.

At Chalcedon, it was Leo’s Tome alone that received pushback. McGuckin sees that in Latin, the term ‘nature’ signifies nothing more than ‘natural properties.’ He sees that it takes a close exegesis to find the distinction, which, as noted is a large part of the problem.

The Tome was accepted by most once they were convinced that it conformed to Cyril. Which raises the question: why not just leave it with Cyril? All agreed that Cyril was the test for Christological orthodoxy. The thing is, Marcian wanted a statement of faith, not a theological dissertation.

Absent the Tome, Chalcedon can be received more easily by all parties at Chalcedon. Leo’s insistence on the inclusion of the Tome precluded such agreement.

Conclusion

Even with all of this, McGuckin notes that the way the Tome was read and understood in the West is not the way it was read and understood in the East – even though all agreed to accept the Tome. Many attempts of reconciliation were made, both within the Chalcedonian Churches and faith those which did not accept Chalcedon.

I have addressed this time period extensively, so will not further the discussion here. Basically, nothing came of these until the Second Council of Constantinople which addressed some of the concerns. By then, it was too late for reunification with the Churches that rejected Chalcedon.