[quote="Alterum, post:14, topic:274572"]
I stand corrected. Apparently Nestorianism (or what was condemned at Chalcedon) should be understood in a more nuanced way.
Nestorianism was based on a rejection of the title theotokos for Mary. Nestorius couldn't accept that it made sense to refer to Mary as the Mother of God, because to him that meant blending the human and divine natures of Christ. He couldn't accept that a single person could possess two natures simultaneously. So he effectively claimed that Christ was a different person from the Logos, that there were two subjects in Christ. This was somewhat similar to the earlier heresy of Adoptionism. Nestorianism was condemned at the Council of Ephesus, 20 years before Chalcedon.
Monophysitism was the heresy condemned at Chalcedon. It was an extreme reaction against Nestorianism from Eutyches, one of the most outspoken men against Nestorius at Ephesus. Eutyches thought the council didn't go far enough when condemning Nestorianism in emphasizing the fact that Christ is only one person, a single subject. He ended up pushing what became his own heresy in opposition to Nestorianism, that the two natures of Christ were blended into a new single nature after the Incarnation.
At the root of both heresies was a refusal to accept that a single person could possess two natures. Nestorius emphasized the two natures so much that he ended up claiming there must be two subjects. Eutyches emphasized the single subject so much that he ended up claiming that there must only be one nature.
[quote="levinas12, post:15, topic:274572"]
In addition to two wills, Jesus also had two intellects (divine, human).
I'll try to find the Kereszty book.
Let me just say that this is mindboggling. The divine intellect & will must be very different from the human intellect & will for this to work. I hope Kereszty can shed some light.
Father Roch gives an excellent summation of the Christology of the Fathers in part 2 chapter 2 of his book. It's brief (only 28 pages) but extremely succinct and easily understood. It's fascinating to see, from our perspective over 1500 years later, how much disagreement there was back then and how many heresies arose because of a lack of words to describe the realities present in Christ. Words such as hypostasis, ousia, prosopon, physis, and the like seem straightforward to us now, given that we're post-Chalcedon. But before the dogmatic definition of Chalcedon, there was very bitter disagreement over what those words should mean when used to talk about Christ. The disagreement over the meaning of those words is the primary reason why heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism, and monophysitism came about.