Council of Ephesus Explained: Key Decisions, History, and Impact on Christianity

Council of Ephesus Explained: Key Decisions, History, and Impact on Christianity | Church Councils

Рет қаралды 6,434

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 17

@PrinceTheGreat42 2 ай бұрын

Friendly reminder that the Council of Chalcedon contradicted the teachings upheld at the Council of Ephesus. The theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, particularly his Christological views, was sidelined at Chalcedon. St. Cyril famously taught: ‘One incarnate nature of the Word of God’ (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη)

@Michael-im4ue 2 ай бұрын

Friendly reminder for you too, Brother in Christ. It seems like you somehow Forgot about St. Cyril who is also the SAME PERSON who Accepted the Formula of Reunion in 433 with Bishop John of Antioch. Below i give you the Formula of Reunion 433: "We confess, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be Theotokos, the mother of God, because God the Word (Logos) took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her. As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connection with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity." Also this formula happened right after Council of Ephesus [431 A.D]. And St. Cyril himself accepted the two-natures language which canonized by the Council of Chalcedon [451 A.D]. So, how would you answer the Objections that through St. Cyril acceptance of two-natures language then the Council of Chalcedon is born? By the way, it is funny when you said that St. Cyril's Christology is different with what the Council of Chalcedon believe. When the Council of Chalcedon ALSO ANATHEMATIZE NESTORIUS. The council of Chalcedon HOLD St. Cyril at the high standard. That can be shown when the Fathers at Chalcedon testing The Tome of Leo with what St. Cyril have taught. So, REMEMBER that St. Cyril teachings IS THE STANDARD whether the Tome of Leo is ORTHODOX or NOT. How can you say that this council contradict the council of ephesus which also supported St. Cyril? ALSO one more thing For You Brother, I met a lot of Oriental Orthodoxy who spammed the comments with the sentence "Mia Physis tou theou logou sesarkomene" just like you did. But completely missing the TWO NATURES of Christ that St. Cyril embraced on that Sentence. St. Cyril's phrase "Mia Physis tou theou logou sesarkomene" contains TWO natures of Lord Jesus Christ. Word "sesarkomene" means "incarnate". Complete phrase thus contains TWO natures: His divine nature in part "Mia Physis" and human nature in part "sesarkomene". You don't believe Me? Well, i guess i will use St. Cyril himself to lecturing you. St. Cyril of Alexandria Letter to Succensus II: • Thus, as I think, or rather as it is, to speak boldly, the all-wise evangelist John said that "the Word was made flesh," not that he was united to flesh without a soul, far from it, nor that he endured a change or alteration, for he has remained what he was, that is, God by nature, and having taken to himself existence as man, that is, being born according to the flesh as we from a woman, again he remained the one Son, except that he is not fleshless as he was before, that is, before the period of the Incarnation when he clothed himself, so to speak, with our nature. But although the body united to him is not consubstantial to the Word begotten of God the Father, even though it is united with a rational soul, still our thought certainly presents to our mind the difference of the two natures which have been united, and yet we confess one Son, Christ and Lord, since the Word was made flesh. And whenever we say flesh, we are saying man. • this has shown forth for us the one physis of the Son; but, as I said, incarnate. Please Keep in mind Brother, everytime you use the phrase "Mia Physis tou theou logou sesarkomene". REMEMBER the word "SESARKOMENE [INCARNATE]" Just like St. Cyril stated himself "this has shown forth for us the one physis of the Son; but, as I said, INCARNATE [SESARKOMENE]". St. Cyril himself believe that Lord Jesus Christ when he became a Man, The Lord is lived IN TWO NATURES, FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN, THE SAME ONE JESUS, ONE GOD, AND ONE LORD. We DO NOT SPLIT CHRIST INTO TWO PERSONS. I don't care about how many Oriental Orthodoxy who still upset till this day about St. Cyril came out with the Formula of Reunion [433] with the John of Antioch. BUT, I will Rather put my faith on St. Cyril of Alexandria rather than your so-called Theologians you called a "Saint". Anathema for Both Dioscorus of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch ☦️

@PrinceTheGreat42 2 ай бұрын

@@Michael-im4ue Brother in Christ, Let’s not mince words. You claim to follow St. Cyril, but your arguments show a misunderstanding of his theology and a misreading of the Councils. Let’s set the record straight, using the same boldness and directness you employ. Your position, relying on Chalcedon and Leo’s Tome, contradicts everything St. Cyril taught and upheld at Ephesus. So let’s break it down point by point. Firstly, you keep repeating “Mia Physis tou Theou Logou Sesarkōmenē” and yet you misunderstand the essence of it. The one incarnate nature of the Word means one united nature after the union - not two natures acting separately, as you suggest. St. Cyril never taught that after the Incarnation, the divine and human natures remained distinct, each performing their own tasks. That kind of division is precisely what he fought against when confronting Nestorius. In Cyril’s own words from his Second Letter to Nestorius: “We confess that the Word, uniting to Himself in His own person flesh animated by a rational soul, became man in an inexpressible and incomprehensible way, and was called Son of man… But these two, gathered together into a true unity, are not two Sons, but one Son.” Here, Cyril makes it abundantly clear: Christ is one person, not two, after the Incarnation. You focus on the word “incarnate” as if it implies two distinct natures functioning independently, but Cyril’s use of “mia physis” speaks of the unified, composite nature of Christ - fully divine, fully human, but one. You’re distorting Cyril’s own words to justify a dyophysite interpretation that he never accepted. Now, let’s address your point about the Formula of Reunion in 433. Yes, Cyril agreed to the use of the phrase “two natures” in the formula, but this was a political concession, not a doctrinal shift. St. Cyril never compromised on the fact that, after the Incarnation, Christ is one person with one united nature. The language of “two natures” was used for reconciliation with the Antiochians, but that does not mean he endorsed the kind of dualism that Chalcedon later championed. Speaking of Chalcedon, your defense of it directly contradicts the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), where Cyril’s theology was made the standard of Orthodoxy. Chalcedon, 20 years later, decided to introduce the formula of “in two natures,” which betrays the unity of Christ that Ephesus had established. Ephesus condemned any teaching that divides Christ into two subjects or two persons, yet Chalcedon’s insistence on “two natures” does just that. You quote Chalcedon, but St. Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius, adopted at Ephesus, refutes this when he says: “If anyone does not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh and that He is One Christ with His own flesh, the same to be God and man together, let him be anathema.” This shows Cyril’s unyielding position: Christ’s divinity and humanity are united hypostatically into one. Ephesus never accepted the division of Christ into two natures, and by upholding Chalcedon, you are splitting Him. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim to follow both Cyril and Chalcedon - the two are fundamentally at odds. Let’s also get to the heart of your reliance on Leo’s Tome. You call it orthodox, but I’ll call it what it is: heretical. Leo’s statement that “each nature does what is proper to it” is a blatant division of Christ’s person into two. According to Leo, the divinity of Christ acts separately from His humanity, as if Christ is doing two different things through two different modes of being. This is pure Nestorianism in disguise. Compare Leo’s words: “Each nature does what is proper to it, with the cooperation of the other: the Word performs what pertains to the Word, and the flesh carries out what pertains to the flesh.” This splits Christ into two operational subjects, one divine and one human. In sharp contrast, Cyril, in his Second Letter to Succensus, says: “It is necessary to understand that the Word united to Himself a body in such a way that there is one Son and one Person; for the human is no longer separate, but is rather understood to be united in a true union with the Word.” Cyril’s statement is the exact opposite of Leo’s. Cyril affirms one single subject - Christ, fully God and fully man in one united nature. Leo’s Tome undermines this unity by suggesting that Christ’s two natures are each acting independently. This heretical division was rejected by many Eastern bishops for a reason, and it should be rejected now. And let’s be honest: Chalcedon’s acceptance of Leo’s Tome is what sealed the council’s theological betrayal. Chalcedon claimed to honor Cyril, but by adopting Leo’s teaching, they abandoned Cyril’s Miaphysite Christology. The council’s formula is not Cyril’s, and it’s certainly not Orthodox. It introduced a duality that splits Christ and throws us back into the very Nestorianism that Cyril crushed at Ephesus. That’s why we, the Oriental Orthodox, rejected Chalcedon. It’s not because we are stuck in the past or upset, as you claim. It’s because Chalcedon is wrong. You say you put your faith in St. Cyril of Alexandria - good. But if you truly follow Cyril, then you must reject the two-nature formula of Chalcedon and Leo’s heretical Tome. St. Cyril’s true followers - like Dioscorus of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch - stood firm against the theological compromises of Chalcedon, and rightly so. We don’t split Christ into two persons, we don’t divide Him into two natures that operate independently, and we certainly don’t accept the Nestorianizing language of Chalcedon or Leo. Anathema to those who compromise the truth of Christ’s one united nature. If you claim to follow Cyril, then follow him fully, and reject the council and its heresies that betray the unity of Christ. In Christ’s one united nature, Your brother in faith

@Michael-im4ue 2 ай бұрын

@@PrinceTheGreat42 First of all, Thank you for your feedback, Brother. Thank you for trying to refute my position and pointing out when i got it wrong from your point of view. But, sorry i do not know why you still do not explained much more about St. Cyril letter which i use against you. That's okay, contrary to your style, let me break down your arguments, and expanding St. Cyril's Letter. This is Funny you say that i misunderstanding his theology, but you DO NOT REFUTE Cyril's letter that i used against you. So let we see who really misunderstood St. Cyril. SO, LET'S GET STARTED. "St. Cyril NEVER TAUGHT that after incarnation, divine and human nature remained distinct" OH REALLY? MAYBE, YOU FORGOT his letters. Below i show you: St. Cyril Letter 40 to Acacius of Melitene: • But the brethren at Antioch, understanding in simple thoughts only those from which Christ is understood to be, have maintained a difference of natures, because, as I said, divinity and humanity are NOT the SAME in NATURAL QUALITY, but proclaimed one Son and Christ and Lord as being truly one; they say his person is one, and in no manner do they separate what has been united. • What I am saying is the same as this. On the one hand, some of the sayings are very especially proper to his divinity. Others again are proper to his humanity. But others very specially pertain to a certain middle position, because they reveal the Son as God and man, both at the same time and in him. This is funny, when you boldly claimed that St. Cyril somehow did not care about the difference between Divine and Human Nature AFTER INCARNATION of The Son. St. Cyril himself refute you, Brother. "because, as I said, divinity and humanity are NOT the SAME in NATURAL QUALITY, but proclaimed one Son and Christ and Lord as being truly one;" KEEP IN MIND, DIVINITY AND HUMANITY ARE NOT THE SAME IN NATURAL QUALITY, So, we chalcedonian like St. Cyril himself understand that Divine and Human nature are NOT THE SAME, they are different, this is logical. Even St. Cyril himself stated that. Well, let me refute you with this St. Cyril letter, "What I am saying is the same as this. On the one hand, some of the sayings are very especially proper to his divinity. Others again are proper to his humanity." BROTHER, LOOK AT THIS. St. Cyril HIMSELF acknowledge that Christ actions some are proper to Divinity and some are proper to his humanity, how can you say that St. Cyril rejected the distinction of the Natures after the Incarnation? When St. Cyril himself acknowledge that Christ has two natures EACH IN ITS PROPER NATURAL QUALITY. ALL THE MIAPHYSITES / Oriental Orthodoxy whom i faced are all the same. THEY ALWAYS CONFUSED BETWEEN NATURE [Ousia] AND PERSON [Hypostasis]. You trying to refute Me using this words from Cyril when you clearly did not understand that St. Cyril use the term "Hypostatic" I DO NOT SPLIT CHRIST INTO TWO HYPOSTASIS [Chalcedon Do Not Split Christ INTO TWO HYPOSTASIS] just like St. Cyril Teachings. And just like i pointed out to you. Council of Chalcedon and Tome's of Leo ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS TWO DIFFERENT NATURES WHICH EACH HAVE THEIR OWN NATURAL QUALITY. St. Cyril HIMSELF KNOWS THAT. I just pointed it out to you. Divinity and Humanity when we speaks in Nature are Distinct. There is Distinction between two natures. BUT, The DIFFERENCES OF THE NATURES ARE UNITED IN THE PERSON [HYPOSTATIC UNION] of Christ, One Son, One Christ, One Lord. You failed to represent my argument, Brother. I DO NOT SAY THAT THERE IS TWO SON, There is The SAME Word of GOD who have and lived in two natures after his incarnation through Blessed Virgin Mary [Theotokos].

@MinaDKSBMSB 2 ай бұрын

100%. And to the Chalcedonian who brought up the Formula of Reunion- That letter is entirely Orthodox and is to be understood with a miaphysite interpretation. Its wording wasn't new, and came from the 4th anathema and its explanation to Theodoret. How do you get this correct miaphysite orthodox interpretation? You read St. Cyril's letters written after the Formula which explain the Christology: Letters I and II to Succensus, Acacius, Valerian, Eulogius, and his book, That Christ is One. All of these express the orthodox miaphysite formula and give us the correct understanding of the Formula of Reunion. Actually, the view you take is exactly the view Theodoret and Ibas took after the Formula. They slandered St. Cyril and campaigned to show that "he repented". St. Cyril actually writes about this slander after the Formula telling John of Antioch to stop the slander from Theodoret, and telling St. Acacius that nothing from the orthodox miaphysite Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus was to be changed.

@dontwasteachance 2 ай бұрын

Serious question: What is the significance of this, or why does this matter? I'm trying to learn and understand - not debate. I get the feeling that I come from a different tradition than you.

@richardkasper5822 2 ай бұрын

I really like this chanel thankyou for putting this content online.

@sophiaduncan347 23 күн бұрын

They just were not barbarians, they were Christians also. And what was these Christian fighting each other for, the nature of Serapis the Christ. Which in fact brought about the council of Ephesus.

@BiglariProductions 2 ай бұрын

I love the beautiful A.I. SO MUCH

@torceridaho 2 ай бұрын

too bad that the church fathers and leaders were so steeped in philosophy that Christianity became a philosophical school rather than the embodiment of God's promises to Israel and the nations. I recently read Ezekiel 37 where Ezekiel prophetically proclaims 24And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. The theology was so Platonized that it de-historicized the eternal covenant between God and the children of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.