Articles about Cyril vs Nestorius + aftermath

[clawrence9008]

Don't have time to read any books about it at the moment, but I was looking for online articles that cover these topics:

1) The controversy between Cyril and Nestorius --> giving a preferably unbiased history of everything that happened, including the theological distinctions made between Cyril and Nestorius (i.e. if Nestorius really taught "Nestorianism" and if Cyril was right in condemning him)
2) How Chalcedon altered or developed the Cyrillian Christology laid down at the Council of Ephesus
3) The subsequent schism between the Chalcedonians and the miaphysites

 

[MW]

Our own Keith Mathison offers a couple of posts here: https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/a-forgotten-father-cyril-of-alexandria/

I don't know how deep you want to go but that will be a good starting place.

 

[Knight]

Don't have time to read any books about it at the moment, but I was looking for online articles that cover these topics:

1) The controversy between Cyril and Nestorius --> giving a preferably unbiased history of everything that happened, including the theological distinctions made between Cyril and Nestorius (i.e. if Nestorius really taught "Nestorianism" and if Cyril was right in condemning him)
2) How Chalcedon altered or developed the Cyrillian Christology laid down at the Council of Ephesus
3) The subsequent schism between the Chalcedonians and the miaphysites

I always recommend books, so I cannot help myself in recommending the works of RC scholar Dr. Richard Price. See here, here, and here. Two of these books used to be on Internet Archive and were taken down. Hence, they are more expensive.

I own a physical copy of his book on the Council of Ephesus. Price walks through the background context, provides translations of all the letters that led up to the calling of the council, and what happened there. It's a fascinating read.

The book is worth the Price (pun!), but if you really don't have time, you can find youtube interviews with him that are about his books. If you don't like videos, I transcribed what I found to be the most interesting portions of said interviews here (including Ephesus and Chalcedon). They're just that informative. I can also say that RC, EO, and OO apologists use and defer to him, if that's any consideration.

 

[RamistThomist]

The issues are so complex that one inevitably will go to books. The miaphysite/Chalcedon controversy, at least for the depth you want, requires books. An easy and utterly delightful book is Philip Jenkins' The Jesus Wars.

 

[clawrence9008]

A follow-up question that’s been on my mind: did Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas really deserve to be anathematized for heretical Christology at Constantinople II, or was that more politically motivated than anything?

 

[RamistThomist]

A follow-up question that’s been on my mind: did Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas really deserve to be anathematized for heretical Christology at Constantinople II, or was that more politically motivated than anything?

I'm not an expert on Mopsuestia, but I thought he walked back some of his more extreme statements.

 

[Knight]

A follow-up question that’s been on my mind: did Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas really deserve to be anathematized for heretical Christology at Constantinople II, or was that more politically motivated than anything?

See pages 8-41 in Richard Price's book on Constantinople II, which is free here. Particularly:

...if Justinian had really been a pragmatic politician who shaped his church policy according to political expediency, he would never have chosen to alienate the Catholics of Italy and Africa by condemning the Three Chapters (particularly at a time when the military situation in Italy was so precarious) nor would he have stuck to his policy so obstinately even after 546-8, when the intensity of opposition in the west became unmistakable. It remains probable that he was motivated by a sense of duty before God to work for a reconciliation between the imperial, Chalcedonian Church and the miaphysites, but this should not be reduced to mere ‘politics’...

If he had been a mere politician, keen to manipulate church teaching in order to win over the non-Chalcedonians, he would not have written in this way. It is clear that his response to the crisis of the early 540s and the apparent loss of divine favour was to recognize a duty to counteract the influences making for schism and yet at the same time to maintain the Chalcedonian faith. The defenders of the Three Chapters accused him of betraying the Council of Chalcedon; and despite his arguments to the contrary it could scarcely be denied that in condemning that which the council had chosen not to condemn he was tacitly admitting that it had done an imperfect job. But he could reasonably argue that, by doing what the council had left undone in its judgements on individuals, he was clarifying and strengthening its witness to the true, dyophysite faith; this would perfect the council’s work and make clear to all, and supremely to the Almighty, the orthodoxy of the Christian empire.