[quote="kwortham, post:11, topic:287382"]
In other words, Nestorius tried to deflect from his guilt against orthodoxy by showing how he had beliefs in common with Leo. It was his hope that the Council would make the illogical jump to believing that Nestorius fully held to all the orthodox beliefs in the Tome. This strategy did not work out for Nestorius.
Because he died on his way to Chalcedon.
[quote="kwortham, post:11, topic:287382"]
If you do not have a copy of Volume 14 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series, then you are going to have to study this by reading online. Of course, you are already starting to wade into it. Volume 12 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series contains the letters of Leo the Great exchanged between him, Eutyches and Flavian in this matter. These exchanges begin on page 32 (the page numbers have not changed in over one hundred years of printing by two different publishers) in Volume 12 and the Tome letter begins on page 38 (Letter XXVIII).
Volume 14 contains the Tome on page 254 in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. What is preserved from this council starts on page 242 and concludes on page 295.
Here are a few things to read:
Eutyches sought protection from Leo against being anathematized (Letter XXI of Volume 12). In so doing he protrays himself as being orthodox in faith and dutifully upholding the faith of the Nicene council. Leo is open to protecting Eutyches and apparently dispatches a letter to Flavian to give and account of himself in this matter. Flavian responds by letter (XXII). This letter conveys some information about Eutyches and the minutes from the proceedings in regards to this matter. This information was not enough, so Leo demands full disclosure. That disclosure is made and this culminates in the Council of Chalcedon.
Now, if you are reading all of this, then you will see that Nestorius tried to shield himself from being anathematized by pulling excerpts from the Tome of Leo (just as protestants do when they isolate verses from the Bible to back up their claims). In other words, Nestorius tried to deflect from his guilt against orthodoxy by showing how he had beliefs in common with Leo. It was his hope that the Council would make the illogical jump to believing that Nestorius fully held to all the orthodox beliefs in the Tome. This strategy did not work out for Nestorius.
It is not logical to assume that since Nestorius held some beliefs of Leo, then Leo must have been a nestorian. That logic is the equivalent of saying that if a rapist is devoutly anti-murder, then everyone that is anti-murder is a rapist.
Yes, I have read it. In fact, the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are almost the only thing I have on my e-reader. I just noticed that, for some reason, Leo seems nice and looking for a constructive solution to the problem until Alexandria gets involved.
[quote="Cavaradossi, post:10, topic:287382"]
It boils down to how the council received the tome. They read it, and deliberated upon its Orthodoxy, trying to find if it could be interpreted as bring in concord with Cyril of Alexandria. The language of dual agency in the tome must be understood to mean that the Word acts in certain ways according to each nature, so that he works miracles according to his divinity and suffers humiliation according to his humanity, but not in such a manner that the natures are reified (made actual things) outside of the one hypostasis of the Word. The two natures can be known only in contemplation, which is why the council's definition of faith says that Jesus Christ, the Word, is made known in two natures, rather than saying that He exists in two natures. The next council, the Second Council of Constantinople, makes this all quite clear, by condemning the affirmation 'in two natures', if it is not understood in the sense of being in contemplation only and allowing for the affirmation 'from two natures', only if it is understood without a mingling or confusion of natures.
Indeed, tei theoria monei. However, the Fifth Council was and is still viewed with a great hostility in the West. Both by Protestants and Catholics.
I sincerely believe that the EO and it's Christology is Orthodox (nomen est omen), especially when viewed in the light of the 5th Council and how you explain it indeed proves that the Tome can be explained in a very orthodox manner. But the Tome is still dangerously ambiguous and I don't know whether Leo meant it in such a way as it was explained by the Neo-Chalcedonians, especially his friendship with the likes of Ibas and Theodoret is pretty suspect, and it is no surprise that from 451-553 so many people rejected it and still do. That's one of the reason I wanted to know if it is infallible according to the 1871 RC dogma. I know far less about RC Christology than I do about OO and EO Christology that's why this thread is more geared towards the RC and how they explain it.