Nestorius

In the great conflict that was now to unfold, the issues cannot be reduced merely to the level of personality clashes, or even the complex issue of the precedence of sees, or the involved political machinations of the imperial court (however important all three factors might be as constituent elements of the scene), for what was about to clash was no less than two great schools of ecclesiastical reflection, piety, and discourse.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, John McGuckin

We now come to the Nestorian controversy, and this story begins in the year 428, three years before the Council of Ephesus. In that year, the throne of Constaninople was vacant. Proclus was a leading candidate for the seat, but he was unable to take up the office as the local clergy disregarded the canonical rights of Constantinople – instead, consecrating their own candidate.

Siding with Proclus were Dalmatius and Eusebius. Proclus also had a very powerful supporter in Augusta Pulcheria, the emperor’s sister (and who, in 450, would become wife of the new emperor, Marcian).

The imperial court decided to circumvent the factions, calling their own candidate: Nestorius. Nestorius held a high reputation for preaching and for his ascetical monastic life. He was also childhood friend of John of Antioch, and a close friend of Bishop Theodoret of Cyr and Andrew of Samosata. These three would be the main opponents of Cyril.

The three represented the scholarly tradition of Antioch, which was rooted in the teaching of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (and to be clear, there was more than one school in Antioch, not all following the same tradition as that of Diodore and Theodoret). These two teachers held in Syria a standing equal to that of Athanasius in Alexandria – albeit with less of an international following.

McGuckin suggests that the issues at stake in this controversy were no less important than those dealt with during the Arian crises of the preceding century. While the two earlier councils dealt with the unity and diversity of God and the Trinity doctrine, this was now an issue of a clear Christological statement: what is the doctrine of Christ? This is the task before Cyril and those of his generation.

And this points to one reason I want to understand this situation and the Council of Ephesus. Of course, beyond the issue of the use of Theotokos to describe Mary, what is necessary here regarding Christology that was not dealt with via the Nicene Creed as statement in the Council of Constantinople? As I read the Creed, I see a strong and clear statement about Christ in it, so I want to understand what there was left to say. In other words, why was the Creed not sufficient to deal with Nestorius on the Christological point?

Returning to McGuckin: Nestorius was enthroned as archbishop on April 10, 428. He brought with him a delegation from his monastery, to include the priest theologian and zealot, Anastasius, who, according to McGuckin, “would lead [Nestorius] to his ruin.”

Twentieth century accounts would tend to romanticize Nestorius just as they would cast Cyril as some sort of villain. But both men were equally ready to use the full extent of their respective political and canonical power (and we shouldn’t look at these men through the lens of twentieth century gentlemanly doctrinal debaters). It should be kept in mind, that Cyril already had a quarter-century of exercising such power before Nestorius came to the throne, while, at the same time, Nestorius had, at least initially, a strong supporter in the emperor’s sister.

Nestorius would begin in much the same manner as did Cyril when he took the throne in Alexandria: strong reforms, though his position was not as secure as was Cyril’s. He alienated the monks of the city by recalling them to their monasteries and forbidding their roles in various ministries. His efforts were not very effective, especially when Pulcheria intervened to take some of the monastics under her protection.

He would deal with heretics with little consideration of any political ramifications, thereby angering the aristocracy. He demolished the last remaining Arian chapel in Constantinople, not a good move considering that the Byzantine armies were made up largely of Arian-believing barbarian tribes.

He would eventually upset Pulcheria by manipulating her “vacillating brother.” Also, to challenge the position of the Virgin Mary was a significant error when considering Pulcheria’s views. Finally, he forbade her from receiving the Eucharistic mysteries with her brother – when she arrived, he refused her the sacraments (if she wanted to be a consecrated Virgin, she should retire to a convent). As a result of such events, she would eventually side with Cyril in this controversy.

On Nestorius’ part we must interpret his actions as proceeding either from bare-faced ambition, or crass ineptitude.

Cyril would take advantage of this, appealing to the Theodosian royal women. This upset Theodosius, but Cyril played it right in the reading of the relative power bases.

The contemporary historian Socrates would call Nestorius a proud and ignorant man, whose oratorical power masked a weakness of incisive thought. Where Nestorius claimed that the Church Fathers did not use the title of Theotokos to describe Mary, Socrates (likely cribbing from Cyril), demonstrated that this title was used.

Meanwhile, Nestorius was surprised that his statements raised such controversy. He was citing clear Antiochene tradition, basically a restatement of what he learned from Theodore of Mopsuestia. In any case, his statements would bring to the fore a real clash between two schools: Alexandria and Antioch.

The synthesis that was called for in light of this clash, one that was subsequently worked out across no less than the next four ecumenical synods, formed the tide mark of orthodoxy in Christianity for subsequent centuries.

This would be councils three through six – a period spanning 250 years! Consider this before concluding that the non-Chalcedonian churches are somehow in error.

In any case: the monastics, with Bishop Proclus behind them and with the support of the lawyer Eusebius – and also Pulcheria – came to Nestorius to make a clear statement affirming the orthodoxy of venerating Mary as Mother of God. This after likely clashing with some of Nestorius’ supporters, including the aforementioned Anastasius. They believed the title Anthropotokos (Mother of Man) was more appropriate. Of course, all this was done to draw Nestorius out into the open.

Nestorius would propose a compromise, a moderated Antiochene form. He agreed that both God-mother and Man-mother could be used in an orthodox manner, thereby neither party’s claim of heresy against the other was valid. In this case, the best title to use would be Christotokos, as this reflected most directly Biblical teaching.

As an aside, and while it doesn’t reduce the importance of historical church understanding, I think all three titles are accurate, and equally so. This is especially the case for Chalcedonian churches, that accept two natures. I’m not so sure about the non-Chalcedonian churches, who accept one nature out of two: in this case, wouldn’t Christotokos be most accurate? In any case (spoiler alert), all traditional churches accept Theotokos. As this title represents the highest of the three, it is the highest honor to be paid to Mary. At least that’s how I understand the reasoning for the use of the title Theotokos.

Conclusion

As we know, Nestorius’ compromise didn’t work. It was viewed as a rehashing of the heresy of Paul of Samosata: Christ was a mere man. In a bit of mocking of Nestorius, who often used the phrase “strictly speaking” in his arguments, the reply would come back:

“If Mary is not, strictly speaking, the Mother of God, then her son is not, strictly speaking, God.”

I can’t argue with that logic. And this is the issue, an absolute marker of the faith: if Jesus Christ is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. In other words, the way we refer to Mary implies something about what we believe about Jesus Christ. And what we believe about Jesus Christ is of utmost importance when it comes to our faith.

The monks in Constantinople likely communicated with the monks in Egypt, therefore Cyril likely had news of the controversy from the beginning. Yet, his representatives at the court were highly skilled in dealing with such matters, so at this juncture, in 428, Cyril seems to have kept only a watching brief.

Yet, he would soon write his first letter on the controversy: “To the Monks of Egypt.” McGuckin has done a great service by including this and several other original documents in this book, and in my next post I will review this first letter.