his epistola synodica actually was approved, for Theodoret and Ibas were criticized for having attacked it[1].
The term ἕνωσις φυσική, used in Cyril's epistola synodica, was left, it is true, unapproved; for this term could have been understood as allowing the assumption that the natures in Christ were mixed through their union. Nevertheless, what Cyril really meant by the term ἕνωσις φυσική was accepted; for the ἕνωσις καθ΄ ὑπόστασιν is interpreted in the sense of an ἕνωσις κατὰ σύνθεσιν[2]. The Logos took on—this is the doctrine of the council—a human σάρξ with ψυχή and νοῦς in such a way, that out of the two natures came one Christ[3], who was the subject as of the θαυματουργεῖν so of the παθεῖν[4]; the two natures, of which the one Christ is composed, are only to be distinguished abstractly[5], the Logos himself was born a second time through Mary[6], the ἐσταυρωμένος is εἶς τῆς ἁγίας τρίαδος[7].
There can be no doubt, that, measured by the
- ↑ Anath. 13: Εἴ τις ἀντιποιεῖται τῶν ἀσεβῶν συγγραμμάτων Θεοδορίτου τῶν κατὰ … τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κυρίλλου καὶ τῶν ιβ' αὐτοῦ κεφαλαίων … καὶ … οὐκ ἀναθεματίζει … πάντας τοὺς γράψαντας κατὰ … τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κυρίλλου καὶ τῶν δώδεκα αὐτοῦ κεφαλαίων … ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Anath. 14 (against Ibas) has an analogous wording.
- ↑ Anath. 4: Ἡ … ἐκκλησία … τὴν ἕνωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὴν σάρκα κατὰ σύνθεσιν ὁμολογεῖ, ὅπερ ἐστὶ καθ' ὑπόστασιν.
- ↑ Anath. 8.
- ↑ Anath. 3.
- ↑ Anath. 8.: … τῇ θεωρίᾳ μόνῃ τὴν διαφορὰν, τούτων λαμβάνειν, ἐξ ων συνετέθη.
- ↑ Anath. 2.
- ↑ Anath. 10; comp. 5.
