THE JUDGMENT AGAINST NESTORIUS
The holy synod said: As, in addition to all else, the
excellent Nestorius has declined to obey our summons and has not received the
holy and God-fearing bishops we sent to him, we have of necessity started upon
an investigation of his impieties. We have found him out thinking and speaking
in an impious fashion, from his letters, from his writings that have been read
out, and from the things that he has recently said in this metropolis which have
been witnessed to by others; and as a result we have been compelled of necessity
both by
n
the
canons and by
n the
letter of our most holy father and fellow servant Celestine, bishop of the
church of the Romans, to issue this sad condemnation against him, though we do
so with many tears.
Our lord Jesus Christ, who has been blasphemed by him,
has determined through this most holy synod that the same Nestorius should be
stripped of his episcopal dignity and removed from the college of priests.
SYNODICAL
LETTER about the
EXPULSION
of the
EASTERN
EISHOPS
(et al.)
The holy and
ecumenical synod, gathered together in Ephesus at the behest of the most pious
princes, [sends greeting] to the bishops, priests, deacons and the whole people
in every province and city.
When we had
gathered together in accordance with the pious decree in the metropolis of
Ephesus, some separated themselves from us, a little more than thirty in number.
The leader of this apostasy was John, bishop of Antioch, and their names are as
follows: First the same John, bishop of Antioch in Syria, [the names of 33 other
eastern bishops follow]
These men,
despite the fact that they were members of the ecclesiastical community, had no
licence either to do harm through their priestly dignity or to do good, because
some among their number had already been deposed. Their support of the views of
Nestorius and Celestius was clearly shown by their refusal to condemn Nestorius
together with us. By a common decree the sacred synod has expelled them from
ecclesiastical communion and deprived them of the exercise of their priestly
office, through which they have been able to harm some and help others.
Since it is
necessary that those who were absent from the synod and remained in the country
or the city, on account of their own church affairs or because of their health,
should not be ignorant of the decisions formulated concerning these matters, we
make it known to your holinesses that if any metropolitan of a province dissents
from the holy and ecumenical synod and attaches himself to the assembly of the
revolters, or should do so later, or should he have adopted the opinions of
Celestius, or do so in the future, such a one is deprived of all power to take
steps against the bishops of his province. He is thereby cast out by the synod
from all ecclesiastical communion and is deprived of all ecclesiastical
authority. Instead he is to be subjected to the bishops of his own province and
the surrounding metropolitans, provided they be orthodox, even to the extent of
being completely deposed from the rank of bishop.
If any
provincial bishops have absented themselves from the holy synod and have either
attached themselves or attempted to attach themselves to the apostasy, or after
subscribing the deposition of Nestorius have returned to the assembly of
apostates, these, according to the decision of the holy synod, are to be
deprived of the priesthood and deposed from their rank.
If any
clerics either in city or country have been suspended by Nestorius and those
with him from their priesthood because of their orthodoxy, we have thought it
right that these should regain their proper rank; and in general we decree that
those clerics who are in agreement with the orthodox and ecumenical synod should
in no way be subject to those bishops who have revolted or may revolt from it.
If any clerics should apostatise and in private or in public dare to hold the
views of Nestorius or Celestius, it is thought right that such should stand
deposed by the holy synod.
Whoever have
been condemned of improper practices by the holy synod or by their own bishops,
and have been uncanonically restored to communion and rank by Nestorius or his
sympathisers, with their habitual lack of discrimination, such persons we have
decreed gain nothing by this and are to remain deposed as before.
Similarly if
anyone should wish in any way to upset the decisions in each point taken in the
holy synod of Ephesus, the holy synod decides that if they are bishops or
clerics they should be completely deprived of their own rank and if they are
laity they should be excommunicated.
DEFINITION
OF THE
FAITH AT
NICAEA
[6th session 22 July 431]
The synod of
Nicaea produced this creed: We believe ... [the Nicene Creed follows]
It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy
creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some
pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of
its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of
error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies
from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given
to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and
blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.
When these documents had been read out, the holy synod
decreed the following.
1.
It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the
one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy
Spirit at Nicaea.
2.
Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit
of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the
knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived
of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
3.
In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity,
thinking or teaching the views expressed in his statement by the priest
Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the
disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be
subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly
is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the
clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before.
DEFINITION
AGAINST THE
IMPIOUS
MESSALIANS OR
EUCHITES
The most
pious and religious bishops Valerian and Amphilochius came together to us and
made a joint enquiry about the so called Messalians or Euchites or Enthusiasts,
or whatever name this appalling heresy goes under, who dwell in the region of
Pamphylia. We made investigation and the god-fearing and reverent Valerian
produced a synodical document concerning these people, which had been drawn up
in great Constantinople in the time of Sisinnius of blessed memory. When this
had been read out in the presence of all, it was agreed that it had been well
made and was correct. We all agreed, as did the most religious bishops Valerian
and Amphilochius and all the pious bishops of the provinces of Pamphylia and
Lycaonia, that what had been inscribed in the synodical document should be
confirmed and in no way disobeyed, clearly without prejudice to the acts of
Alexandria. Consequently those anywhere in that province who subscribed to the
heresy of the Messalians or Enthusiasts, or who were suspected of the disease,
whether clerical or lay, are to come together; if they sign the anathemas
according to what was promulgated in the aforementioned synod, should they be
clergy they should remain such and if laity they are to remain in communion. But
if they decline and do not anathematise, if they are presbyters or deacons or
hold any other rank in the church, they are to forfeit their clerical status and
grade and communion, and if they are laity let them be anathematised.
In addition,
those who have been condemned are not to be permitted to govern monasteries,
lest tares be sown and increase. The vigorous and zealous execution of all these
decrees is enjoined upon the reverent bishops Valerian and Amphilochius and the
other reverent bishops throughout the whole province. Furthermore it seemed good
that the filthy book of this heresy, which has been published and is called by
them Asceticon, should be anathematised, as being composed by heretics, a copy
of which the most pious and religious Valerian brought with him. Any other
production savouring of the like impiety which is found anywhere is to be
treated similarly.
In addition,
when they come together, they should commit clearly to writing whatever conduces
to the creation of concord, communion and order. But if any discussion should
arise in connexion with the present business among the most godly bishops
Valerian, Amphilochius and the other reverent bishops in the province, and if
something difficult or ambiguous crops up, then in such a case it seems good
that the godly bishops of Lycia and Lycaonia should be brought in, and the
metropolitan of whatever province these choose should not be left out. In this
way the disputed questions should through their means be brought to an
appropriate solution.
Resolution : that the bishops of Cyprus may themselves conduct ordinations.
The holy synod declared:
The most
reverent bishop Rheginus and with him Zenon and Evagrius, revered bishops of the
province of Cyprus, have brought forward what is both an innovation against the
ecclesiastical customs and the canons of the holy fathers and concerns the
freedom of all. Therefore, since common diseases need more healing as they bring
greater harm with them, if it has not been a continuous ancient custom for the
bishop of Antioch to hold ordinations in Cyprus--as it is asserted in memorials
and orally by the religious men who have come before the synod -- the prelates
of the holy churches of Cyprus shall, free from molestation and violence, use
their right to perform by themselves the ordination of reverent bishops for
their island, according to the canons of the holy fathers and the ancient
custom.
The same
principle will be observed for other dioceses and provinces everywhere. None of
the reverent bishops is to take possession of another province which has not
been under his authority from the first or under that of his predecessors. Any
one who has thus seized upon and subjected a province is to restore it, lest the
canons of the fathers be transgressed and the arrogance of secular power effect
an entry through the cover of priestly office. We must avoid bit by bit
destroying the freedom which our lord Jesus Christ the liberator of all people,
gave us through his own blood. It is therefore the pleasure of the holy and
ecumenical synod to secure intact and inviolate the rights belonging to each
province from the first, according to the custom which has been in force from of
old. Each metropolitan has the right to take a copy of the proceedings for his
own security. If any one produces a version which is at variance with what is
here decided, the holy and ecumenical synod unanimously decrees it to be of no
avail.
LETTER
OF CYRIL
TO JOHN
OF ANTIOCH
ABOUT
PEACE
Having read
these holy phrases and finding ourselves in agreement (for “there is one Lord,
one faith, one baptism”), we have given glory to God who is the saviour of all
and rejoice together that our churches and yours are at one in professing the
same faith as the inspired scriptures and the tradition of our holy fathers. But
since I discovered that there are some always eager to find fault, who buzz
around like angry wasps and spit forth evil words against me, to the effect that
I say that the holy body of Christ came down from heaven and not from the holy
virgin, I thought it necessary in answer to them to say a little about this
matter to you.
O fools,
whose only competence is in slander! How did you become so perverted in thought
and fall into such a sickness of idiocy? For you must surely know that almost
all our fight for the faith arose in connexion with our insistence that the holy
virgin is the mother of God. But if we claim that the holy body of our common
saviour Christ is born from heaven and was not of her, why should she still be
considered God-bearer? For whom indeed did she bear, if it is untrue that she
bore Emmanuel according to the flesh? It is rather they who speak such nonsense
against me who deserve to be ridiculed. For the holy prophet Isaiah does not lie
when he says, “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us”. Again the holy
Gabriel speaks total truth when he says to the blessed virgin: “Do not fear,
Mary. You have found favour with God, and behold you will conceive in your womb
and bear a son and you will call his name Jesus . For he will save his people
from their sins”.
But when we
say that our lord Jesus Christ came from heaven and above, we do not apply such
expressions as “from above” and “from heaven” to his holy flesh. Rather
do we follow the divine Paul who clearly proclaimed: “The first man was of the
earth, earthly, the second man is the Lord from heaven”.
We also
recall our Saviour who said: “No one has gone up into heaven except him who
came down from heaven, the son of man”. Yet he was born, as I have just said,
from the holy virgin according to the flesh.
But since
God the Word, who came down from above and from heaven, “emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave”, and was called son of man though all the while he
remained what he was, that is God (for he is unchangeable and immutable by
nature), he is said to have come down from heaven, since he is now understood to
be one with his own flesh, and he has therefore been designated the man from
heaven, being both perfect in godhead and perfect in humanity and thought of as
in one person. For there is one lord Jesus Christ, even though we do not ignore
the difference of natures, out of which we say that the ineffable union was
effected. As for those who say that there was a mixture or confusion or blending
of God the Word with the flesh, let your holiness see fit to stop their mouths.
For it is quite likely that some should spread it abroad that I have thought or
said such things. But I am so far from thinking anything of the kind that I
think that those are quite mad who suppose that “a shadow of change” is
conceivable in connexion with the divine nature of the Word. For he remains what
he is always and never changes, nor could he ever change or be susceptible of
it. Furthermore we all confess that the Word of God is impassible though in his
all-wise economy of the mystery he is seen to attribute to himself the
sufferings undergone by his own flesh. So the all-wise Peter speaks of “Christ
suffering for us in the flesh” and not in the nature of his unspeakable
godhead. For in order that he might be believed to be the saviour of all, in
accordance with our economic appropriation, as I said, he refers to himself the
sufferings of his own flesh, in much the same way as is suggested through the
voice of the prophet coming as it were from him in advance: “I gave my back to
the smiters and my cheeks to blows; I hid not my face from shame and spitting”
.
Let your
holiness be persuaded and let no one else cherish any doubt, that we everywhere
follow the opinions of the holy fathers especially those of our blessed and
glorious father Athanasius, with whose opinions we differ not in the slightest.
I would have added many of their testimonies, proving my opinions from theirs,
had I not feared that the length of the letter would be made tedious thereby. We
do not permit anyone in any way to upset the defined faith or the creed drawn up
by the holy fathers who assembled at Nicaea as the times demanded. We give
neither ourselves nor them the licence to alter any expression there or to
change a single syllable, remembering the words: “Remove not the ancient
landmarks which your fathers have set”.
For it was
not they that spoke, but the Spirit of God the Father, who proceeds from him and
who is not distinct from the Son in essence. We are further confirmed in our
view by the words of our holy spiritual teachers. For in the Acts of the
Apostles it is written: “When they came to Mysia, they tried to go to Bithynia
and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them”. And the divine Paul writes as
follows: “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the
flesh, you are in the spirit, if the Spirit of God really dwells in you. And
anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him”. When,
therefore, any of those who love to upset sound doctrine pervert my words to
their way of thinking, your holiness should not be surprised at this, but should
remember that the followers of every heresy extract from inspired scripture the
occasion of their error, and that all heretics corrupt the true expressions of
the holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads
an inextinguishable flame.
Since
therefore we have learnt that even the letter of our glorious father Athanasius
to the blessed Epictetus, which is completely orthodox, has been corrupted and
circulated by some, with the result that many have been injured therefore,
thinking it both useful and necessary for the brethren, we have despatched to
your holiness accurate copies of the original, unadulterated writings which we
have.
EXCERPT FROM THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
The Council of Chalcedon “has accepted the synodical
letters of the blessed Cyril, pastor of the church in Alexandria, to Nestorius
and to the Orientals, as being well-suited to refuting Nestorius’s mad folly
and to providing an interpretation for those who in their religious zeal might
desire understanding of the saving creed.”.
This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 1990