Lately I have, to my great regret, researched the council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. However I cannot but notice that the Tome is either nestorian or just very ambiguous. The fact that Nestorius said the tome described his view doesn’t make it any better. Some examples:
“For each form does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.”
"So if he accepts the Christian faith and does not turn a deaf ear to the preaching of the gospel, let him consider what nature it was that hung, pierced with nails, on the wood of the cross. "
How can ‘natures’ even succumb to injuries or perform miracles? How can natures be pierced with nails? Doesn’t Leo introduce two hypostaseis here? I’m at loss how to interpret it.
And than compare this:
“When you cross-examined Eutyches and he replied, “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but I confess one nature after the union”, I am amazed that such an absurd and corrupt declaration of faith was not very severely censured by the judges; and that an extremely foolish statement was disregarded, as if nothing whatever offensive had been heard. It is just as wicked to say that the only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the incarnation as it is abominable to claim that there was a single nature in him after the Word was made flesh.”
“Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm the joining into a unity by saying he was of two natures, but after the union, we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons, but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have said, that there is one nature of the Word [of God] made flesh.” [St. Cyril to Succensus, letter 45:6]
Another question, is the Tome infallible according to Catholics?