Distancia focal de las cámaras

The Christological creed consisted of two sections. First, there was an explanation of why it was necessary to provide a deeper clarification of the Nicene creed, which must not be understood as an impertinent attempt to explain a divine mystery. The second section contained a Christological formula, which, following the Nicene creed, confessed Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God, true God and true man, consisting of a reasonable soul and body, who qua God was born of the Father before time and qua human being was born of the Virgin. The two natures, divine and human, are united together in such a manner that one Christ, one Lord, one Son is confessed. In the union the natures are not commingled. On account of this union, the Blessed Virgin is

acknowledged as Theotokos (Birthgiver of God), since of her the Logos took on flesh and became man. As regards the evangelical and prophetic attributes of Christ, some refer to the Godhead only and some to humanity.153

151 _{Mansi V, 291, 303; Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, 129–30.}

152 _{Ibid., 134-38. Tillemont argued that the union was effected in March (Lenain de Tillemont, Memoires}

pour servir à l’histoire ecclesiastique des six premiers siecles : justifiez par les citations des auteurs originaux : avec des notes pour éclaircir les difficultez des faits & de la chronologie, 547).

153 _{Mansi V, 305. Cf. Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, 130–31: “Ὁµολογοῦµεν τοιγαροῦν τὸν} κύριον ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν µονογενῆ, Θεὸν τέλειον καὶ ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώµατος· πρὸ αἰώνων µὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου δὲ τῶν ἡµερῶν τὸν αὐτὸν δι’ ἡµᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡµετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα· ὁµοοῦσιον τῷ πατρὶ τὸν αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁµοούσιον ἡµῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα· δύο γάρ φύσεων ἕνωσις γέγονε· διὸ ἕνα Χριστὸν, ἕνα υἱὸν, ἕνα κύριον ὁµολογοῦµεν· κατὰ ταύτην τὴν τῆς ἀσθγχύτου ἑνώσεως ἔννοιαν ὁµολογοῦµεν τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον θεοτόκον, διὰ τὸ τὸν Θεὸν

Although the creed was phrased in a manner acceptable to both Orientals and Cyril, in its essence it was a statement of Antiochene Christology, with its unambiguous parallel structure in Christ (full divinity and full humanity, including rational soul and body).154 This is most evident in the last sentence of its Christological creed, where the predications of Jesus are not always attributed to both natures.

The creed does accept the term Theotokos from the outset, but the term is acceptable on account of the union-without-comingling of the two natures (δύο γάρ φύσεων ἕνωσις γέγονε· διὸ ἕνα Χριστὸν, ἕνα υἱὸν, ἕνα κύριον ὁµολογοῦµεν· κατὰ ταύτην τὴν τῆς ἀσθγχύτου ἑνώσεως ἔννοιαν ὁµολογοῦµεν τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον θεοτόκον). After all, the term itself did not present a fundamental obstacle to the

Orientals. As has been mentioned above, John of Antioch, in his letter to Nestorius from late November 430 AD, testified that the Orientals had no essential objection to it.155 Even Nestorius accepted it, with proper qualifications.156

Christ is defined as “perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and body” (Θεὸν τέλειον καὶ ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώµατος). As Stewardson observed, this expression leans towards Antiochene terminology, since Cyril preferred

Λόγον σαρκοθῆναι καὶ ἐνανθροπῆσαι, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συλλήψεως ἑνῶσαι ἑαυτῷ τὸν ἐξ ἀυτῆς ληφθέντα ναὸν· τὰς δὲ εὐαγγελικὰς καὶ ἀποστολικὰς περὶ τοῦ κυρίου φωνὰς ἴσµεν τοὺς θεολόγους ἄνδρας τὰς µὲν κοινοποιοῦντας, ὠς ἐφ’ ἑνὸς προσώπου, τὰς δὲ διαιροῦντας, ὡς ἐπὶ δύο φύσεων· καὶ τὰς µὲν θεοπρεπεῖς κατὰ τὴν θεότητα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὰς δὲ ταπεινὰς κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα αὐτοῦ παραδιδόντας.”

154 _{Stewardson, “The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus According to His Eranistes,” 36. See also Adolf} von Harnack, History of Dogma, ed. E. T. Speirs and J. T. Millar, vol. 4, Theological Translation Library, No. 9 (London: Williams and Norgate, 1898), 265–67.; Clayton, The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus, 35–36.

155 _{ACO I, 1, 1, 96; Conc. Eph. I. c. 25 in Mansi IV, 1061–68; (also, see above, Section 1.3).} 156 _{ACO 1, 4, 7.}

more generic terms about the humanity of Christ.157 However, as von Harnack observed, Cyril accepted it because it effectively disassociated him from Apollinarianism.158

The creed masterfully proceeds by using the ideas and theological language of the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed: Christ is born of the Father and is consubstantial (ὁµοούσιος) with Him according to divinity. Christ is also born of the Virgin Mary and is consubstantial (ὁµοούσιος) with us according to humanity. Regarding the coming

together of the natures, however, the creed used a very general expression: “the union of the natures took place” (δύο γάρ φύσεων ἕνωσις γέγονε).

Stewardson argued that the expression was a masterly evasion of Cyril’s battle- cry “one nature” (µία φύσις), which was a strong term for oneness in Christ — much stronger than Nestorius’s συνάφεια.159 However, the expression used in the Tomos is actually a generic term for bodies coming together. The term συνάφεια is a general type of union of two distinct bodies. Although it leaves much to be desired in terms of Christological accuracy, συνάφεια is still a more precise term than the one found in the creed. Yet the creed made an important qualification of the union — it is a union- without-commingling of the constituent parts. An appropriate term for this definition of the union would be συνάφεια, which comes from the Oriental milieu. The term can be traced back to the period before the Nestorian controversy. In the Expositio Rectae Fidei, Theodoret used the term in a Trinitarian context to denote the union in substance of the persons of the Holy Trinity.160 _{For Theodoret, this union is the closest possible and is}

157 _{Stewardson, “The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus According to His Eranistes,” 36.} 158 _{von Harnack, History of Dogma, 175–77.}

159 _{Stewardson, “The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus According to His Eranistes,” 37.}

160 _{Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Expositio Rectae Fidei 5, (“And behold the utter unity (ἄκρα συνάφειας) into} which he places the marks of distinction [of the persons]….”).

inseparable, yet does not involve confusion of the constituent parts.161 Thus,

Stewardson’s observation about the term is correct only with regards to the politics — the statement of the creed regarding the union of the natures in Christ is a masterful solution of a politically sensitive area of Christology. However, the term ἕνωσις is even more ambiguous that the imprecise term συνάφεια.162

There is little doubt that Theodoret of Cyrrhus was the main theological mind behind the Christological creed found in the letter of John of Antioch and the

Orientals.163 Yet some of his concerns expressed earlier in the controversy are not attested to in this creed. At the beginning of the controversy, in the Refutation of Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas, Theodoret expressed a fear that Cyril’s hypostatic union (ὑποστατικὴ ἕνωσις) of the two natures of Christ was advocating their commingling (κρᾶσις) so as to create a tertium quid.164 Such a union was unacceptable, since it would result in Christ being neither God nor man. Thus, one would expect a more precise definition of the

161 _{Theodoret, Expositio Rectae Fidei 5, (“…the indivisible notion (ἀχώριστον…ἔννοιαν) of the Father,} Son, and Holy Spirit”).

162 _{To declare that there was a “union” between two entities was a rather vague statement. In terms of} Christological debates about the nature of the union of the divine and human natures of Christ, such a statement was inadequate, for there were at least four different types of union which the ancient Stoics had recognized. According to this philosophical system, two or more bodies can be united in: 1. παράθεσις (a peripheral union of bodies), 2. κρᾶσις (a union of bodies, reserved for fluids, in which bodies penetrate every part of the other without being confounded into a newly created homogenous mass — a tertium

quid), 3. σύγχυσις (a union of two objects where the distinctive attributes of each are destroyed so as to

form a tertium quid), or 4. µίξις (the same as κρᾶσις, but reserved for dry bodies). For further discussion see Joannes Stobaeus, Eclog. 1, 374; Alexander of Aphrodisias, De mixtione 142A. See also Eduard Zeller,

The Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, trans. Oswald E. Reichel (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1892),

137, n. 1.; Luise Abramowski, Drei christologische Untersuchungen, ed. E. Lohse, vol. 45, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1981), 79–80.

163 _{As H. Chadwick convincingly argued, Theodoret’s authorship of the creed is attested in a letter from} John of Antioch to Theodoret preserved in the Collectio Cassiensis (Epistle 210 in ACO I, 4, 153). He also sees an early draft of the creed in Theodoret’s Epistle 151 (SC 429, 96-128) to the monks of the East. See Henry Chadwick, “Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy,” Journal of Theological

Studies n.s. 2(1951): 147, n. 2.; See also Bright, The Age of the Fathers: Chapters in the History of the Church During the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, 338.; László Vanyó, Az Ókeresztény Egyház És Irodalma (The Early Church and its Literature) (Budapest: Szent István Társulat, 1988), 689.; Marijan Mandac,

“L’union christologique dans les œuvres de Théodoret antérieures au concile d’Éphèse,” Ephemerides

Theologicae Lovanienses 47(1971): 64–96.

union on Theodoret’s part. Although a term specifying the type of the union had not been used immediately, still the Orientals’ aim of safeguarding the union against

interpretations of commingling of the natures was accomplished effectively. In the section on the term Theotokos, the creed allows its use on account of the union-without- confusion that took place in Christ.165 _{The lack of precision in the immediate definition of}

the union of natures in the creed should be attributed to its conciliatory nature. Its main concern was to establish the lowest common denominator between Cyril’s Christology and that of the Orientals, which would then serve as a platform for reconciliation.

By way of conclusion, it must be mentioned that the overall nature of the creed was not a rectification of the Christological teaching of either side, but a reconciliation. However, it was still a sweeping theological victory for the Antiochene Christological system, notwithstanding the political victory of Cyril’s party.