Was Pope Leo the Great a Nestorian?

[Livenotonevil]

I was reading a document shared with me by an Oriental Orthodox, on the joint-Orthodox commission between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and representing the Eastern side back in the day, John Romanides says that Pope Leo openly supported Theodoret before the Council of Chalcedon (that is, before Theodoret officially repented), a viscous supporter and proponent of Nestorianism who not only refused to recognize the 3rd Ecumenical Council, but also deemed Saint Cyril of Alexandria's 12 Anathemas heretical.

"Theodoret's heretical Christology is especially clear in his attacks against Cyril's Twelve Chapters. These attacks were indeed considered heretical by all the fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council except by the legates of Pope Leo of Rome. This is clear from the fact that the fathers of Chalcedon accepted Theodoret's condemnation by the Council of Ephesus 449 in spite of Leo's refusal to accept it. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon paid no attention to Leo's opinions on the matter and refused to seat Theodoret as a member of the Council since he was still under the condemnation of Ephesus 449. He was allowed to sit only as accuser of Dioscoros. The Council of Chalcedon lifted Theodoret's excommunication of 449 only when he finally anathematized Nestorius, accepted the Third Ecumenical Council and the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril at session VIII. Ibas of Edessa was also likewise cleared of his condemnation at sessions IX and X.

Here we are faced with a Pope Leo who knowingly or willfully or unknowingly supported a heretical and yet unrepentant Theodoret of Cyrus. Theodoret was allowed by unknown means to quietly manifest his " repentance" for the first time, even though attending the Council only as an accuser, by becoming a member of the committee which was appointed to examine the Tome of Leo to see if it indeed agrees with the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril. The list of the opinions of the members of this committee are recorded in the minutes and they unanimously found on close examination that the Tome of Leo agrees with Cyril's Twelve Chapters. Among the names listed is that of Theodoret. In other words Theodoret finally found that Cyril agreed with Leo his patron and vice versa. He was later re-united to the Church as just mentioned....

It is important to note that Theodoret's profession of the faith of Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Council at session VIII of the Council of Chalcedon was accompanied by much hesitation on his part and Episcopal cries of " Nestorian" against him. This is a clear proof that had Dioscoros accepted to appear before the Council and face Theodoret his accuser, he would have certainly been cleared in his fight against this Nestorian enemy of Cyril. He would have been found at least doctrinally, if not canonically, excusable for his excommunication of Leo for his support of this Nestorian. Dioscoros and his bishops excommunicated Leo upon approaching Chalcedon and learning that the legates of Pope Leo were insisting that Theodoret must participate as a member of the Council. Leo insisted upon this in spite of the fact that Theodoret had never yet accepted the Third Ecumenical Council, the Twelve Chapters of Cyril, the condemnation of Nestorius, nor the re-conciliation of 433 between John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria. It seems that the Chalcedonian Orthodox must let these facts sink into their heads and take them seriously.

This is why the Council of Chalcedon upheld the excommunication of Theodoret by the Ephesine Council of 449. Therefore, Dioscoros was legally and canonically correct by excommunicating Leo for his support of Theodoret before the Council of Chalcedon. Ephesus 449 was still before the Council of Chalcedon a part of Roman Law in spite Leo of Rome. From a purely doctrinal viewpoint the Pope of Rome was guilty of supporting a Nestorian and a vigorous enemy of the Twelve Chapters, which were the basis of the doctrinal decision of the Third Ecumenical Council.

In 1964 I pointed out that the fundamental criterion of Orthodox Christology was the acceptance of the fact that the Logos Who is consubstantial with His Father became Himself consubstantial with us by His birth as man from His mother, the Virgin Mary. In contrast, the Nestorian position was that Christ is a person who is the product of the union of the two natures in Christ. For Nestorius and Theodoret (up to 451) it is not the Logos Himself Who became by nature man and consubstantial with his mother and us. For both of them the very idea that the Logos could be united to His human nature by nature meant that He was united by a necessity of His divine nature. Thus for Nestorius and Theodoret the one nature of the Logos is consubstantial with the Father and the created nature of the Logos is consubstantial with us. The Logos did not become man and son of Mary by nature and the Virgin Mary did not become the mother of the Logos incarnate. The Basic question was not whether one accepted two natures or one nature in Christ, but whether one accepted that the Logos Himself, Who is cosubstantial with His Father, became Himself consubsantial with his mother and us without confusion, change, separation, division, etc. Neither Nestorius nor Theodoret accepted that the Logos Himself became consubstantial with his mother and us and was born and died as man.

Theodoret was a heretic before Leo got involved with him and he remained a heretic all the time that he was being supported by Leo. Just after Chalcedon Leo wrote in a letter to Theodoret about their common victory they had won at the Council of Chalcedon, yet in the very same letter complained about Theodoret's tardiness in rejecting Nestorius. In other words Leo supported Theodoret during all the time that he had not one confession of the Orthodox faith to his credit. The first time that he came close to a confession of the Orthodox faith was when he became a member of the committee, we have already mentioned, which found that Leo's Tome agrees with Cyril's Twelve Chapters. Evidently he was made a member of this committee in order to create grounds for satisfying Leo's insistence that he must have his way about Theodoret or there will be no Council of Chalcedon."

https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/leo-and-theodoret-dioscorus-and-eutyches/

In spite of this, and the very ambiguous Nestorian sounding passages of the Tome of Leo ("Each form does the acts that is proper to it in communion with the other: the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence." and "Herod evilly strives to kill one who was like a human being at the earliest stage the Magi rejoice to adore on bended knee one who is the Lord of all."), was Pope Leo a Nestorian?

I posted this similar question on another forum elsewhere, and I want to hear your responses.

[Livenotonevil]

I'm a little suspicious of such a blanket view of Leo the Great, especially in light of the fact that Pope Leo commissioned Saint John Cassian's work "On the Incarnation: Against Nestorius" while Saint Cyril was alive. I was wondering if those who are familiar with the Chalcedonian non-Chalcedonian controversy could give me some insight which explains this accusation that Pope Leo supported Nestorianism; after all, if there is no context, it's possible that Leo the Great could have changed his views after influence by Theodoret.

[Xavier]

A laughable absurdity! It is like saying, was Athanasius the Great a Semi-Arian? After all, St. Athanasius the Great discussed doctrines with some Semi-Arians and brought them back to a pious profession of the Catholic Faith. And that is what St. Leo the Great did as well here.

1. Nestorius invented the heresy that Mary is not the Mother of God, something Pope St. Leo the Great always taught explicitly. Nestorius also wickedly said Christ was not God Incarnate, but a kind of divinized man in whom the Word dwelt as a different person. Pope St. Celestine, the same Sovereign Pontiff who sent St. Patrick to Ireland, condemned the wickedness of Nestorius of Constantinople and gave to St. Cyril of Alexandria the delegated authority to excommunicate the heresiarch. The future Pope St. Leo was already in Rome and even then influential in this decision against Nestorius. Against Nestorius, the Catholic Church taught that Christ was One Person in Two Natures from His Two Nativities, this is the true doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Eutyches of Constantinople committed the opposite blasphemy of Nestorius, for which St. Flavian of Constantinople opposed him; he taught Monophysitism, when he said the union took place in the nature and not the hypostasis. And even in that, he taught something so absurd that even those who want to defend Eutyches do not understand the full implications of it, like Pope St. Leo the Great did, "But when during your cross-examination Eutyches replied and said, "I confess that our Lord had two natures before the union but after the union I confess but one ," I am surprised that so absurd and mistaken a statement of his should not have been criticised and rebuked by his judges, and that an utterance which reaches the height of stupidity and blasphemy should be allowed to pass as if nothing offensive had been heard: for the impiety of saying that the Son of God was of two natures before His incarnation is only equalled by the iniquity of asserting that there was but one nature in Him after "the Word became flesh."

How can there be Two Natures before the Union? Infinite Folly! Neither is there One Nature after the Union, otherwise God the Father, Who is One Nature with Christ, became Man. It is the Second Person of the Trinity Who became Man, by a Hypostatic and not natural union, when He united human nature to His divine nature in One Hypostasis, not One Nature. The Holy Trinity is One Divine Nature in Three Persons. The Incarnation is the Second Person uniting human Nature to His Person.

2. That's why Nestorius was again condemned at Chalcedon and Theodoret had to condemn Nestorianism and assent to the anathema against Nestorius to be admitted. CE: "At the eighth session (26 Oct., 451), he was admitted to full membership after he had agreed to the anathema against Nestorius;" Pope St. Leo wrote to Theodoret that both Eutyches and Nestorius are to be held as condemned and their impious doctrines anathematized for all who desire to be restored to Catholic communion and full salvation. "Accordingly while he [Dioscorus] strove to cut short Flavian of blessed memory's life in the present world, he has deprived himself of the light of true life. While he tried to drive you out of your churches, he has cut off himself from fellowship with Christians. While he drags and drives many into agreement with error, he has stabbed his own soul with many a wound, a solitary convicted offender beyond all, and through all and for all, for he was the cause of all men's being accused ... we go not away in anything from those rules of Faith which the Godhead of the Holy Ghost brought forward at the Council of Chalcedon, and weigh our words with every caution so as to avoid the two extremes of new false doctrine : not any longer (God forbid it) as if debating what is doubtful, but with full authority laying down conclusions already arrived at ... corroborated by the testimonies of so many fathers in the past that they must persuade any one, however unwise and stubborn his heart, so long as he be not already joined with the devil in damnation for his wickedness ... Wherefore this, too, it is our duty to provide against the Church's enemies, that, as far as in us lies, we leave them no occasion for slandering us, nor yet, in acting against the Nestorians or Eutychians, ever seem to have retreated before the other side, but that we shun and condemn both the enemies of Christ in equal measure"

The fact that that Attilla the Hun was stopped by Pope St. Leo shows the Apostolic Greatness of this Apostolic Man. Up until very recently, before ecumenism confused the issue for some, even the Greek Church used to regard Pope St. Leo the Great as a shining light of truth, and among the most heroic defenders of the Faith that the Universal Church has ever known, against both Nestorian and Eutychian impiety. Read how Saints like St. John Damascene and St. Maximus of Constantinople treat these controversies, beside any other first millenium Saints.

Take my challenge. Say 15 decades of the Rosary every day for 3 years, and you will know for yourself Pope St. Leo and the Catholic Church was and is right. Till then, you will continue to be confused between Greek and Syrian Orthodoxy. Who knows, one day, you may be trying to telling us Nestorius got it right all along, and the Catholic Church erred. Or maybe Arius did, and Athanasius erred? There is no doubt Eutyches erred, and Pope St. Leo the Great was right in condemning him, anymore than that Arius erred, and St. Athanasius was right to condemn him.

[Kreuzritter]

He's a saint in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. I don't understand the intention of the question. Personally I don't think substantia in Latin means  what the Cappadocian Fathers meant by the Greek ousia, and its use just once more confuses the distinction set forth by them between ousia and hypostasis,  so maybe there was initial semantic confusion for Leo.

[Livenotonevil]

He's a saint in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. I don't understand the intention of the question. Personally I don't think substantia in Latin means  what the Cappadocian Fathers meant by the Greek ousia, and its use just once more confuses the distinction set forth by them between ousia and hypostasis,  so maybe there was initial semantic confusion for Leo.

There is no intent of maliciousness; before I become a Catechumen in the Eastern Orthodox Church, I want to inquire into Oriental Orthodoxy and see the claims of the other religious body which claims to have Apostolic Succession, besides the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church - the Oriental Orthodox Church. I'm not gonna bother with the Assyrian Church, for if we assume their church to be true, then the Body of Christ disappeared off the face of the Earth for 100 years. I'm doing this so if and when I convert, I can have stability.

However, looking into Chalcedon leads to a lot of ambiguity regarding what exactly happened, and it's difficult to try to figure out what the intentions of the Fathers of Chalcedon was. And an accusation I hear of Leo the Great was that he was a Crypto-Nestorian - not exactly Nestorian in the exact same doctrine of Nestorius, but still believed that the Word of God and the human Jesus were separate individual - dare I say sentient - actors, despite being united together.

There are some points that are worth considering:

Ibas of Edessa wrote a Letter to a man named Maris the Persian, where he recounts the events of the controversy between Cyril and Nestorius. While he condemned Nestorius, he stated that Cyril held to Apollinarianism, and claimed that Cyril couldn't distinguish "The Temple and the One who dwelt in it", a Nestorian phrase. Moreover, he said that Cyril repudiated his errors with the reunion of John of Antioch.

This is a blasphemous letter which openly adheres to Nestorianism; however, in the Council of Chalcedon itself, according to the Minutes and the subsequent Tradition of the Church, the Papal Legates and the Patriarch of Antioch read the Letter and announced, from reading it, that Ibas was Orthodox.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council would of course condemn this Letter, which led to all the French Churches and the North African Churches condemning Pope Vigilius for heresy, and breaking communion with him. These schisms wouldn't be healed until 300 years later, as these Churches felt as though the 5th Council overturned Chalcedon and what was believed in Chalcedon.

This of course begs the question - why did those Churches come to that conclusion, and why did they accept such a heretical and blasphemous letter as holy and inspired by the Council?

In addition to the fact that the Tome of Leo, in light of Cyril's "On the Unity of Christ", has some Nestorian sounding phrases, and the fact that Leo associated himself with Theodoret, it really makes me question how exactly we read the documents of Leo.

From Saint Cyril's on the Unity of Christ:

"But they (the Nestorians) move along completely different lines to us, and interpret the holy mystery foolishly. They maintain that God the Word assumed a perfect man who was of the line of Abraham and David, as the scriptures say, and who was of the same nature as his ancestors, a man complete in his nature, composed of a rational soul and human flesh. They say that this man, of our nature, was fashioned by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin and 'was born of a woman, born under the law, so that he could redeem us all', from the law's slavery as we received the sonship destined for us. They say that God the Word conjoined this man in an entirely new way, bringing him to death as is the law among men, but raising him from the dead and taking him up to heaven and sitting him at the right hand of God so that he was 'above every Principality and Authority, every Power and Dorminion, and every name that can be named...' They say that he received the worship of creation insofar as he had an inseparable conjunction with the Divine Nature, as all creation rendered its worship to him with intellectual reference to God. It is for this reason that one does not speak of two Sons or two Lords because God the Word, the Only Begotten Son of the Father, is the Son by nature and this man is connected with him and participates in him and thereby shares int he very title and honor of the Son. The Lord, who by nature is God the Word, communicates the honor to this man who is conjoined with him, and this is why we do not speak of two Sons or two Lords since it is obvious that he who is Lord and Son by nature has, for the sake of salvation, assumed a man into an inseparable conjunction with himself which thereby elevates him to the title and honor of both Son and Lord...

My goodness. I cannot imagine how stupid and intellectual superficial they must be who hold to such a conception. The whole thing is faithlessness and nothing else."

And now, the Tome of Leo:

"There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man. God, by the fact that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; man, by the fact that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." God, by the fact that "all things were made through him, and nothing was made without him," man, by the fact that "he was made of a woman, made under the law." The birth of flesh reveals human nature; birth from a virgin is a proof of divine power. A lowly cradle manifests the infancy of the child; angels' voices announce the greatness of the most High. Herod evilly strives to kill one who was like a human being at the earliest stage the Magi rejoice to adore on bended knee one who is the Lord of all.[/u] And when he came to be baptised by his precursor John, the Father's voice spoke thunder from heaven, to ensure that he did not go unnoticed because the divinity was concealed by the veil of flesh: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Accordingly, the same one whom the devil craftily tempts as a man, the angels dutifully wait on as God. Hunger, thirst, weariness, sleep are patently human. But to satisfy five thousand people with five loaves; to dispense living water to the Samaritan woman, a drink of which will stop her being thirsty ever again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet that do not sink; to rebuke the storm and level the mounting waves; there can be no doubt these are divine."

In addition to the fact that he supported Theodoret before Chalcedon started, according to these sources, I question who exactly Leo was.
Keep in mind that before Chalcedon, Theodoret was a vile heretic who condemned Cyril of Alexandria and the Holy Council of Ephesus, and during the confession of Theodoret, according to the Minutes of Chalcedon, he openly tried to avoid condemning Nestorius through sophistically weaving through the doctrinal requirements of confession, but finally gave him after the Bishops of the Church hissed at him "Nestorian! Nestorian!"

[Livenotonevil]

Of course, it isn't exactly one-sided. According to John Anthony McGuckin, an Orthodox priest who holds a PhD, claims that the phrase "One Incarnate Nature of the Word" was taken up by Cyril after thinking that it came from Athanasius, when in reality the Church of Alexandria mixed up some documents of Apollinarius and Athansius. However, Cyril actually tried to make this formula Orthodox in explaining it, which is why Nestorius constantly thought of Cyril as a disciple of Apollinarius; Cyril compared the One Incarnate Nature of the Word to that of a the human body and the soul, which are distinct in thought but are one in each person's existence and consciousness.

More than this, of course, is Leo commissioning John Cassian against Nestorius, and the alleged actions which occurred in Ephesus 449 under Pope Dioscorus.


As there is ambiguity with Leo's character, there's ambiguity of Dioscorus's character as well - the fact that Eutyches was reconciled under his leadership while still maintaining to a heretical theology (claiming that Christ is consubstantial with His mother but not consubstantial with us after he was reconciled after Ephesus 449), and moreover, according to Justinian the Great, quoting Dioscorus in a document which we no longer have, Dioscorus was alleged to have said that "it is blasphemous to say that Christ had our same natural blood, the blood of pigs and goats." We also know, from about 7 different sources, that Dioscorus said during the Council, that "Anybody who confesses two natures shall be cut in two, to see how they like being two!" and he threatened to call the Imperial Guards if this order wasn't enforced according to 3 of those sources.

It also seems that the phrasing of "Each form does actions in communion with the other" has origins in the writings of Augustine and Ambrose, according to Susan Wessel.

I don't know, man. I think it's necessary for me to study Saint Cyril - and maybe after Saint Athanasius - more, by finishing his work "On the Unity of Christ" and maybe reading his commentary on the Gospel of John.

[Livenotonevil]

Till then, you will continue to be confused between Greek and Syrian Orthodoxy. Who knows, one day, you may be trying to telling us Nestorius got it right all along, and the Catholic Church erred. Or maybe Arius did, and Athanasius erred? There is no doubt Eutyches erred, and Pope St. Leo the Great was right in condemning him, anymore than that Arius erred, and St. Athanasius was right to condemn him.

No, I won't. There is not One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, consecrated by the blood of the Apostles, which continues today that holds the belief of Arianism nor Nestorianism. For Christ must have established a single Church which produces Saints.

There are three claimants to Apostolicity, and I have thus far removed Roman Catholicism from the possibility of that being correct. Now it's between Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy.

As I've said, the Assyrian Church is out of it, because it's Patriarchs at various points entered communion with Rome, and when Nestorius himself rejects their beliefs, it's obviously false.

[Tales]

As Jesus said in the ninth Beatitude:  "Blessed are the smart, for they shall figure my puzzle out."

Like the Protestants have spent the past 500 years trying to riddle out what Scripture means, you can spend your life trying to riddle out whatever it is you are trying to do.  Or you can realize that the Good Shepherd didn't make his Faith the world's most impossibly complex puzzle.

What do they say about the forest and trees?

Cautionary warning: do not be surprised when none live up to your standards and you lose it all.

[John Lamb]

There is no intent of maliciousness; before I become a Catechumen in the Eastern Orthodox Church, I want to inquire into Oriental Orthodoxy and see the claims of the other religious body which claims to have Apostolic Succession, besides the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church - the Oriental Orthodox Church. I'm not gonna bother with the Assyrian Church, for if we assume their church to be true, then the Body of Christ disappeared off the face of the Earth for 100 years. I'm doing this so if and when I convert, I can have stability.

You're going about this back to front.
St. Augustine says that we believe in order to understand. What you're doing is to understand in order to believe.

The idea that you will find stability in faith by examining all of the theological controversies of centuries and coming to your own conclusion about each and every one of them - is laughable.
Faith requires a certain submission of intellect, one that you seem hesitant to give. I'm not a Roman Catholic because I think we have the best theologians or that the Thomistic way of systematic theology is the best - I'm a Roman Catholic because there needs to be a church with the primacy in order to guarantee unity, and the only church with a claim to the primacy is the Roman Church. Case closed. Now I can look at all these theological controversies - like Chalcedon - with the eyes of faith and submission of intellect, rather than the hysterical mind of a worried scholar trying to piece it all together himself.

From Saint Cyril's on the Unity of Christ:

"But they (the Nestorians) move along completely different lines to us, and interpret the holy mystery foolishly. They maintain that God the Word assumed a perfect man who was of the line of Abraham and David, as the scriptures say, and who was of the same nature as his ancestors, a man complete in his nature, composed of a rational soul and human flesh. They say that this man, of our nature, was fashioned by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin and 'was born of a woman, born under the law, so that he could redeem us all', from the law's slavery as we received the sonship destined for us. They say that God the Word conjoined this man in an entirely new way, bringing him to death as is the law among men, but raising him from the dead and taking him up to heaven and sitting him at the right hand of God so that he was 'above every Principality and Authority, every Power and Dorminion, and every name that can be named...' They say that he received the worship of creation insofar as he had an inseparable conjunction with the Divine Nature, as all creation rendered its worship to him with intellectual reference to God. It is for this reason that one does not speak of two Sons or two Lords because God the Word, the Only Begotten Son of the Father, is the Son by nature and this man is connected with him and participates in him and thereby shares int he very title and honor of the Son. The Lord, who by nature is God the Word, communicates the honor to this man who is conjoined with him, and this is why we do not speak of two Sons or two Lords since it is obvious that he who is Lord and Son by nature has, for the sake of salvation, assumed a man into an inseparable conjunction with himself which thereby elevates him to the title and honor of both Son and Lord...

My goodness. I cannot imagine how stupid and intellectual superficial they must be who hold to such a conception. The whole thing is faithlessness and nothing else."

And now, the Tome of Leo:

"There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man. God, by the fact that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; man, by the fact that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." God, by the fact that "all things were made through him, and nothing was made without him," man, by the fact that "he was made of a woman, made under the law." The birth of flesh reveals human nature; birth from a virgin is a proof of divine power. A lowly cradle manifests the infancy of the child; angels' voices announce the greatness of the most High. Herod evilly strives to kill one who was like a human being at the earliest stage the Magi rejoice to adore on bended knee one who is the Lord of all.[/u] And when he came to be baptised by his precursor John, the Father's voice spoke thunder from heaven, to ensure that he did not go unnoticed because the divinity was concealed by the veil of flesh: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Accordingly, the same one whom the devil craftily tempts as a man, the angels dutifully wait on as God. Hunger, thirst, weariness, sleep are patently human. But to satisfy five thousand people with five loaves; to dispense living water to the Samaritan woman, a drink of which will stop her being thirsty ever again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet that do not sink; to rebuke the storm and level the mounting waves; there can be no doubt these are divine."

The passage of Leo is indeed orthodox, and Cyril's description of Nestorian error is indeed heterodox.

Cyril correctly describes the Nestorian error as the divine Word assuming a man. But this is untrue. The Word did not assume a man, because a man is a full person in his own right; rather, the divine Word assumed a human nature.
Our Lord is not a human being, but has a human nature; in terms of being, He is homoousion or consubstantialis with the Father. So Leo is correct to say that faithless Herod strived to kill one who was "like a human being", whereas the faithful Magi adored the Lord.
What Cyril's Nestorian describes is the activities of two beings (a divine being and a human being), whereas what Leo describes is the activities of two natures (a divine nature and a human nature) in one being (Christ, the God-Man). In the passage you quote Leo is careful to assert that the two distinct natures in Christ are fully retained in each of their activities, as against Eutychianism which blends the two natures into one. The orthodox faith is that Christ is one in Person / hypostasis, and two in nature.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

Article 3. Whether the Divine Person assumed a man?

Objection 1. It would seem that the Divine Person assumed a man. For it is written (Psalm 64:5): "Blessed is he whom Thou hast chosen and taken to Thee," which a gloss expounds of Christ; and Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): "The Son of God assumed a man, and in him bore things human."

Objection 2. Further, the word "man" signifies a human nature. But the Son of God assumed a human nature. Therefore He assumed a man.

Objection 3. Further, the Son of God is a man. But He is not one of the men He did not assume, for with equal reason He would be Peter or any other man. Therefore He is the man whom He assumed.

On the contrary, Is the authority of Felix, Pope and Martyr, which is quoted by the Council of Ephesus: "We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, because He is the Eternal Son and Word of God, and not a man assumed by God, in such sort that there is another besides Him. For the Son of God did not assume a man, so that there be another besides Him."

I answer that, As has been said above (Article 2), what is assumed is not the term of the assumption, but is presupposed to the assumption. Now it was said (III:3:2) that the individual to Whom the human nature is assumed is none other than the Divine Person, Who is the term of the assumption. Now this word "man" signifies human nature, as it is in a suppositum, because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4,11), this word God signifies Him Who has human nature. And hence it cannot properly be said that the Son assumed a man, granted (as it must be, in fact) that in Christ there is but one suppositum and one hypostasis. But according to such as hold that there are two hypostases or two supposita in Christ, it may fittingly and properly be said that the Son of God assumed a man. Hence the first opinion quoted in Sent. iii, D. 6, grants that a man was assumed. But this opinion is erroneous, as was said above (III:2:6).

Reply to Objection 1. These phrases are not to be taken too literally, but are to be loyally explained, wherever they are used by holy doctors; so as to say that a man was assumed, inasmuch as his nature was assumed; and because the assumption terminated in this—that the Son of God is man.

Reply to Objection 2. The word "man" signifies human nature in the concrete, inasmuch as it is in a suppositum; and hence, since we cannot say a suppositum was assumed, so we cannot say a man was assumed.

Reply to Objection 3. The Son of God is not the man whom He assumed, but the man whose nature He assumed.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4004.htm#article3

Article 1. Whether the Union of Incarnate Word took place in the nature?


Objection 1. It would seem that the Union of the Word Incarnate took place in the nature. For Cyril says (he is quoted in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, part ii, act. 1): "We must understand not two natures, but one incarnate nature of the Word of God"; and this could not be unless the union took place in the nature. Therefore the union of the Word Incarnate took place in the nature.

Objection 2. Further, Athanasius says that, as the rational soul and the flesh together form the human nature, so God and man together form a certain one nature; therefore the union took place in the nature.

Objection 3. Further, of two natures one is not denominated by the other unless they are to some extent mutually transmuted. But the Divine and human natures in Christ are denominated one by the other; for Cyril says (quoted in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, part ii, act. 1) that the Divine nature "is incarnate"; and Gregory Nazianzen says (Ep. i ad Cledon.) that the human nature is "deified," as appears from Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii, 6,11). Therefore from two natures one seems to have resulted.

On the contrary, It is said in the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon: "We confess that in these latter times the only-begotten Son of God appeared in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation—the distinction of natures not having been taken away by the union." Therefore the union did not take place in the nature.

I answer that, [...]

Reply to Objection 1. This authority of Cyril is expounded in the Fifth Synod (i.e. Constantinople II, coll. viii, can. 8) thus: "If anyone proclaiming one nature of the Word of God to be incarnate does not receive it as the Fathers taught, viz. that from the Divine and human natures (a union in subsistence having taken place) one Christ results, but endeavors from these words to introduce one nature or substance of the Divinity and flesh of Christ, let such a one be anathema." Hence the sense is not that from two natures one results; but that the Nature of the Word of God united flesh to Itself in Person.

Reply to Objection 2. From the soul and body a double unity, viz. of nature and person—results in each individual—of nature inasmuch as the soul is united to the body, and formally perfects it, so that one nature springs from the two as from act and potentiality or from matter and form. But the comparison is not in this sense, for the Divine Nature cannot be the form of a body, as was proved (I:3:8). Unity of person results from them, however, inasmuch as there is an individual subsisting in flesh and soul; and herein lies the likeness, for the one Christ subsists in the Divine and human natures.

Reply to Objection 3. As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6,11), the Divine Nature is said to be incarnate because It is united to flesh personally, and not that It is changed into flesh. So likewise the flesh is said to be deified, as he also says (De Fide Orth. 15,17), not by change, but by union with the Word, its natural properties still remaining, and hence it may be considered as deified, inasmuch as it becomes the flesh of the Word of God, but not that it becomes God.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article1

Article 6. Whether the human nature was united to the Word of God accidentally?

[...]

I answer that, In evidence of this question we must know that two heresies have arisen with regard to the mystery of the union of the two natures in Christ. The first confused the natures, as Eutyches and Dioscorus, who held that from the two natures one nature resulted, so that they confessed Christ to be "from" two natures (which were distinct before the union), but not "in" two natures (the distinction of nature coming to an end after the union). The second was the heresy of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who separated the persons. For they held the Person of the Son of God to be distinct from the Person of the Son of man, and said these were mutually united: first, "by indwelling," inasmuch as the Word of God dwelt in the man, as in a temple; secondly, "by unity of intention," inasmuch as the will of the man was always in agreement with the will of the Word of God; thirdly, "by operation," inasmuch as they said the man was the instrument of the Word of God; fourthly, "by greatness of honor," inasmuch as all honor shown to the Son of God was equally shown to the Son of man, on account of His union with the Son of God; fifthly, "by equivocation," i.e. communication of names, inasmuch as we say that this man is God and the Son of God. Now it is plain that these modes imply an accidental union.

[...]

Now the Catholic faith, holding the mean between the aforesaid positions, does not affirm that the union of God and man took place in the essence or nature, nor yet in something accidental, but midway, in a subsistence or hypostasis. Hence in the fifth Council (Constantinople II, coll. viii, can. 5) we read: "Since the unity may be understood in many ways, those who follow the impiety of Apollinaris and Eutyches, professing the destruction of what came together" (i.e. destroying both natures), "confess a union by mingling; but the followers of Theodore and Nestorius, maintaining division, introduce a union of purpose. But the Holy Church of God, rejecting the impiety of both these treasons, confesses a union of the Word of God with flesh, by composition, which is in subsistence." Therefore it is plain that the second of the three opinions, mentioned by the Master (Sent. iii, D, 6), which holds one hypostasis of God and man, is not to be called an opinion, but an article of Catholic faith. So likewise the first opinion which holds two hypostases, and the third which holds an accidental union, are not to be styled opinions, but heresies condemned by the Church in Councils.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article6

[Livenotonevil]

Well, this is the conundrum that I've fallen into: How do we know what Church to submit our will to?

The idea that the Church ontologically needs an infallible leader of the Church is a presupposition that anticipates that the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church. Moreover, such a concept has already proven disastrous post-Vatican I, and now it seems impossible whether to trust said point of unity. When a Pope kisses a Quran, worships with Jews, Pagans, or Muslims, says the Death Penalty is intrinsically, personally sinful at all times, and when Popes are able to commit clear sacrilege on the Altar of the Lord - when is the commitment to unceasingly assent to the point of unity necessary to end? After all, holding to the view that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ,  that he is Jesus Christ's Representative, Vice President of the Church here on Earth - does that lead to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus Christ Himself held contradictory views? That the Ecumenical Councils and their debates were all for nought? That the Church Fathers and the Saints, some who were murdered and tortured for the Faith - Saint Cyril of Alexandria was imprisoned, Saint Athanasius was exiled several times, the Martyrs of Rome, etc., died for a reality which is subjective and flexible, free to the whims of a man who can contradict what Christ Himself, and his Apostles, and their successors taught, who, according to Vatican I, you must submit to in all matters of discipline and government?

What reason do you have to assent to the Roman Catholic Church? If your reasoning is that it "feels right", how will you answer such an argument to those who are born as Egyptians or Armenians, or those who are born as Russians or Greeks, whose respective liturgies have created a psychological and emotional imprint that attaches themselves to the opinions and beliefs of their "schismatic" Churches?

Can we find the Church by the Holy Spirit? Sure. But the question is, how do we know where the Holy Spirit is? If you follow the criterion of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church, you will receive different results of what the Holy Spirit is. And the question is, how do you know who is who?

You could receive stigmata and exchange hearts with Jesus, but how do you know that this is not your own spiritual delusion, from Satan himself? Your only criterion is the Roman Catholic Church, whom you've already chosen to submit to, but what if Eastern Orthodoxy is right, and you are deluded?

Surely, after all, you must think that those who receive the "Uncreated Light" and condemn Roman Catholicism are deluded. However, how do you know that this is delusional?

If you say "Because the Roman Catholic Church says so," I'm sorry to say but you've created a fallacious line of circular logic that is akin to Sola Scriptura. "I know that the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church because the Holy Spirit illuminates me. I know that it is the Holy Spirit because the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church and tells me to."

To me, one of the better approaches is to suppress your own emotions and to try to find the True Church by history. It's not a perfect method, dealing with the biases of individuals who want to perpetuate their own perspective, but when you clearly see a Pope being condemned for heresy in the 6th Ecumenical Council, a Pope being excommunicated in the 5th Ecumenical Council, the Churches of North Africa and French Churches breaking communion with the Pope believing him to be heretical after the 5th Ecumenical Council, Saint Cyprian calling the Pope "a tyrant" and claiming that the Pope has no right to intervene with his own jurisdiction, and Saint Gregory the Dialogist calling the title "Universal Bishop" a title of the Antichrist, and even Pope Innocent III saying that a Pope can fall into heresy, what other conclusion can you come to, from objective information, that the Roman Catholic Church is false? If you have a set of premises, and one of the premises is false, then the entire conclusion is false. One point of contradiction is enough to show that perhaps the Pope wasn't always an infallible Vicar of Christ whom everyone everywhere must assent to at all times, but we have several.

Can Christ bend Truth? No, because Christ is Truth.

I don't think finding the Truth should strictly be an exercise of history, it should also be one of prayer, if one truly desires to know the Truth. However, you can't just throw objectivity out the window.

What other logical criterion do I have? Just pick a Church and hope I don't burn in hell for eternity without any reason to take a gamble?

[mikemac]

You are not picking a church.  You are leaving The Church.

[Livenotonevil]

How do you know I'm not leaving a schismatic sect of people holding contradictions as dogma, while trying to find the Church?

[mikemac]

See Xavier and John Lamb's posts above.  And I particularly like Davis Blank - EG's sarcasm.

As Jesus said in the ninth Beatitude:  "Blessed are the smart, for they shall figure my puzzle out."

And especially his quote that is not sarcastic.

"Cautionary warning: do not be surprised when none live up to your standards and you lose it all."

[John Lamb]

Well, this is the conundrum that I've fallen into: How do we know what Church to submit our will to?

There's only one that seriously asks us to: "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." ; "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

But you're just a scribe, and you want to teach us about the papacy.

[Livenotonevil]

I guess the Pre-Schism Church Fathers are "Pharisaical scribes", who "want to teach us about the Papacy."

http://www.uaocamerica.org/sources-of-orthodox-teachin/the-church-fathers-interpre.html

After all, according to you, they dared to come up with their own conclusions in telling us what to believe, and not what Vatican I infallibly defined! According to you, "They are all gone aside, they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre: with their tongues they acted deceitfully; the poison of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and unhappiness in their ways: and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes."

According to you, what lawless men are they who hold to a different doctrine than what Vatican I has defined, and it seems that they will plunge into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for their lawless attacks against the Roman Church.

Origen:

"But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, 'The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,' hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church?' Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?"

Eusebius:

"And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils' (Ps. 18.14)...By 'the foundations of the world,' we shall understand the strength of God's wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that 'the world' is actually the Church of God, and that its 'foundation' is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'; and elsewhere: 'The rock, moreover, was Christ.' For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: 'No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: 'Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.' These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world."

Saint Augustine:

"And I tell you...'You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer..."



"But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, 'Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.' One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.' Then He added, 'and I say unto thee.' As if He had said, 'Because thou hast said unto Me, "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;" I also say unto thee, "Thou art Peter." ' For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. 'Therefore,' he saith, 'Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock' which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;' that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, 'will I build My Church.' I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
    For men who wished to be built upon men, said, 'I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,' who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, 'But I am of Christ.' And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, 'Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?' And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced 'blessed,' bearing the figure of the Church."




"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. "