St. Cyril and others

neolinux

I am an individual living in Taiwan that is researching and looking for information in connection with the interaction between Nestorius and St. Cyril. I am NOT looking to annoy, offend, or aggressively debate with anyone on this very well done website for the Coptic Church!
;D

I have benefitted from a number of articles from the OO.
I have grown weary of reading posts in yahoo groups or website discussions in connection with early church history that often ignore the contributions of the OO. Not here of course.... ::)

I have also benefitted from reading articles from the Church of the East's website.

and to answer a potential question --- No I do not belong to any Orthodox Church -- whether it is the OO -- the EO -- or the Church of the East or even the Roman Catholic Church.
Thus I do not belong to any of the churches that were involved in the early church councils.

another potential question might be what do I plan to do with my research -- I wish to better understand and comprehend for myself some issues related to the 4th&5th centuries especially regarding the study of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian Council.

After reading numerous articles from all three sides I decided to join different discussion websites and yahoo groups since it appears to me that there are those in each church that are more moderate and willing to attempt ecumenical discussions.

One question that often surfaces is whether St.Cyril misunderstood Nestorius or misrepresented him.
Sadly, many of Nestorius writings were apparently burned so that it is very difficult to find articles written in english.

Actually for myself I am not so much concerned whether or not there were eccelesiastical or political ambitions involved on either or both sides since this happens very frequently in the days that we now live in. There are Hatfields and McCoys (two feuding families that apparently lived in the Tennessee mountains)
in many traditions.

Lastly I am wondering whether if many of the issues of the 4th & 5th centuries will continuously be debated for many decades to come just as the Americans continue to bring up conspiracy theories for Pearl Harbor and JFK's death.

Thank you for your patience in reading my post since this medium is easily prone to misunderstandings.

jfranklin

:)

I have also benefitted from reading articles from the Church of the East's website

I love the Church of the East.{Forgive me my dear Coptic brothers and sisters in Christ}...lol ;)I just wish they had more content on their website.There is another website that has a forum and quite a bit of information about the COE,I would be glad to give it to you in private messaging.Its the one that has to do with the peshitta,the Aramaic Bible,you may already know of it{I dont think it would be apropriate to put the address here on this thread...lol...Nestorians and coptics have not always gotten along...lol}

One question that often surfaces is whether St.Cyril misunderstood Nestorius or misrepresented him

I think there was misunderstanding on both sides.I believe both men were misrepresented{or in some cases outright slandered}with respect to their actual teachings regarding the person of Christ.

jfranklin

pe****ta,the Aramaic Bible

;D

LOL...The filter blocked the word thinking it was a curse word when actually it was the name of the Aramaic Bible...lol...Thats pretty funny. :D

Safaa

There was some misunderstanding, but I believe there also was an inherent difference between St. Cyril and Nestorius. Nestorius believed in a larger seperation between the God and Man of Jesus. He believed it was the man Jesus that was ridiculed and beaten, while it was the God Jesus that was glorified. The Orthodox church believes that what happened to one, happened to the other. Though apparently, in aramaic, the words 'nature' and 'person' aren't translated well.

jfranklin

in aramaic, the words 'nature' and 'person' aren't translated well

Yes,that was the major problem.A misunderstanding of terms and definations.It wasnt so much that the words werent translated well but rather there was a lack of truly understanding the Aramaic with all of its subtle nuances.The same can be said for Cyril and his Christological language;he was often misrepresented by his enemies because they simply didnt understand fully the meaning of his Christological terms and definetions,trying to understand them through the lens of their own theological perceptions.The different languages of the empire truly hindered theological debate, fostering controversy and division;a state that could have easily been avoided if there had been one,common langauge unifying the empire.

but I believe there also was an inherent difference between St. Cyril and Nestorius. Nestorius believed in a larger seperation between the God and Man of Jesus

This is true as well, but the difference was not as great as was once thought.

LightBearer

Hi neolinux,

Welcome to the site. There's a book titled "A Documentary on The Nestorian Assyrian Church of the East" that explains the situation quite a bit. The author is Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, who is a Coptic hierarch. But the book is in fact historical and talks about both perspectives and the ensuing conflict between St. Cyril and Nestorius.

However, some of it was definitely a misunderstanding, as is evident from the ongoing discussions between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox churches. Check out this link for a summary of the recent discussions:
http://www.suscopts.org/literature/literature.php?subaction=showfull&id=1076780596&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3&;

If the link above doesn't work, type in http://www.suscopts.org. Then, follow this path: Resources > Literature > Church Perspective > The Agreed Statements: Oriental Orthodox Responses.

Also, if you're interested in the Coptic church's views on Christology (which were those of St. Cyril) and why the Nestorian view was seen as a heresy, here are a couple of short articles:

http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/christlecture1.pdf

http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/christlecture2.pdf

Hope this helps and you find what you're looking for. Also, just so you know, St. Cyril wrote several letters to Nestorius...if you can get your hands on those, you may be better able to assess their interaction for yourself, although the book I mentioned does talk about those letters as well.

Good luck.

neolinux

;D ;D ;D

Thank you for the valuable information thus far.

I have been reading numerous articles here and there.
It is difficult however.... to be able to sift through some of
the material due to the intensity of the feelings from either side.
::)

for example there is a common misunderstanding made in my opinion concerning whether the Coptics were actually "mono" physites....
which i do not believe they were... as far as i have read St. Cyril utilized "mia" physis which indicates a strong unity and not something related to a monad scheme of things.

I also gleaned from another article that Nestorius had a lifestyle that was more akin to a ascetic monk than someone who had a affluent lifestyle. However, on the other hand another writer suggested that St. Cyril had a much more affluent lifestyle since he apparently sent a good sum of money to Rome?
I am wondering whether the two cities were in an intense competition for being the highest authority in the East which would have added fuel to their feuding.
It appears to me that a number of issues raised in theological disputes were then channeled over into the political realm in order to achieve the desired goals that the eventual winner had in mind.

another very puzzling item for me (not belonging to any of the three churches ) is the meaning, depth, and seriousness of anathematizing each other in those daze.
I hope my questions are acceptable since I do not wish to annoy anyone or any church. secondly, i am attempting to understand St. Cyril and his theology so that i might better comprehend it and thus i am wondering how his interaction with Nestorius fitted into all of it.