Nestorius quotes about change

Barsaàma died between 492 and 495, Acacius in 496 or 497. Narses seems to have lived longer. The Nestorian Church which they founded, though cut off from the CatholicChurch by political exigencies, never intended to do more than practice an autonomy like that of the Eastern patriarchates. Its heresy consisted mainly in its refusal to accept the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. It is interesting to note that neither Junilius nor Cassiodorus speaks of the school of Nisibis as heretical. They were probably aware that it was not quite orthodox, but the Persians who appeared at the Holy Places as pilgrims or at Constantinople must have seemed like Catholics on account of their hatred to the Monophysites, who were the great enemy in the East. The official teaching of the Nestorian Church in the time of King Chosroes (Khusran) II (died 628) is well presented to us in the treatise “De unione” composed by the energetic monk Babai the Great, preserved in a MS. from which Labort has made extracts (pp. 280-87). Babai denies that hypostasis and person have the same meaning. A hypostasis is a singular essence (Greek: ousia) subsisting in its independent being, numerically one, separate from others by its accidents. A person is that property of a hypostasis which distinguishes it from others (this seems to be rather “personality” than “person”) as being itself and no other, so that Peter is Peter and Paul is Paul. As hypostases Peter and Paul are not distinguished, for they have the same specific qualities, but they are distinguished by their particular qualities, their wisdom or otherwise, their height or their temperament, etc. And, as the singular property which the hypostasis possesses is not the hypostasis itself, the singular property which distinguishes it is called “person”. It would seem that Babai means that “a man” (individuum vagum) is the hypostasis, but not the person, unti

[i]Syriac Dialogue, Vienna, February 1996./[/i]

Saint Cyril wrote three letters to Nestorius asking him to reconcile his teaching with the orthodox teachings of the fathers of the church, but Nestorius did not accept. The letters of Saint Cyril always began with the salutation: "To the most pious and most God-loving bishop Nestorius". His third and last letter to Nestorius was sent from "Cyril and the synod assembled in Alexandria from the diocese of Egypt".

On the other hand, concerning the man-God Christology, it is clear that this can be a great heresy. If someone is going to claim that the Antiochene Christology is based in that way, to say that the Logos assumed a man at the same moment when that man was formed in the womb of the Virgin Saint Mary, this would not mean that the Logos became incarnate or God manifested in flesh, but that man became God in Jesus Christ.

The Word of God did not assume a man with a human prosopon (person) but He became man by assuming perfect humanity and uniting it to Himself from the very moment of incarnation.

Generally speaking, the person is identified according to the nature which he possesses. God the Logos possesses the divine nature and as a man possesses the human nature. The person, being the owner and carrier of the nature, can be Himself divine and human at the same time. This can happen if He is the eternal Logos who became man in the fullness of time. The Logos was possessing the divine essence of the Fr. from eternity in His own prosopon (person).

The Logos was possessing the divine essence of the Fr. from eternity in His own prosopon (person).

In the incarnation the same prosopon of the Logos is possessing the human essence of our nature making this essence His very own, so that there was no need for a human prosopon to be added to the prosopon of the Logos. In His own prosopon the human nature was personalised and became a perfect man

Last week I got to be the former Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, who died in 450 A.D. Really. Yes, it was only for a little while, as part of a “friends of the past” presentation at a Masters program I’m helping with in Switzerland. To play the part of this man, condemned as a heretic in 431 at the Council of Ephesus, was an experience that led me to reflect again on these questions: What would it feel like to be looked at as a heretic? To have your writings burned, to have your ideas ignored or considered rubbish?

In my last few blog posts I have reflected on these questions. In the case of Nestorius, there has been a re-evaluation of his writings and thought, and some further consideration given as to whether he was really a heretic. As I played him last week, and brought out some of his thought in quotes, I felt in a very small way the pain of being so misunderstood. We had arranged for Nestorius’ primary opponent, Cyril of Alexandria, to be in the audience that day. (thanks John P.)  At one point, Cyril jumped up, startling the group, and started shouting at me, “You are a heretic! We exiled you! What are you doing here? Guards, take him away!” Then one of Nestorius’ supporters jumped up also and proceeded to defend him and condemn Cyril.

Quite a ruckus. But it has happened so often not only in the fifth century but even today, in universities, churches, political gatherings. Last week I heard for the first time a wonderful quote from Prof. Nicholas Wolterstorff, an esteemed philosopher and educator who taught many years at Yale University. Dr. Christopher Hall, our speaker for the week who passed on the quote, called it “Wolterstorff’s rule”. It certainly goes well with my last blog post, Dinner with Heretics. 

Here is the quote, “You have not presented your opponent’s position fairly until you see him sitting across the table from you, and he smiles and says ‘yes, tha