Mar Cyril of Alexandria was certainly not a Monophysite / Eutychian but a “Nestorian” according to many scholars ! This is because he repented of his Monophysite heresy and abandoned the Third Ecumenical Council held in 431 A.D. for what is called wrongly called “Nestorianism” but properly the Orthodox faith of Mar Theodoros of Mopsuestia. Have you read the Epistle of Mar Ibas to Mar Mari the Persian? This is what my Bishop Mar Ashur Bawai Soro of our Holy Chaldean Church of the East taught us.
You should make yourself aware of the fact that Mar Cyril of Alexandria reconciled with Mar John of Antioch (who the Oriental Orthodox reject as a saint) and accepted the two natures as Orthodox as taught by the doctor of the Universal Church, Mar Theodoros of Mopsuestia (who was injustly condemned by Justinian at the Fifth Council in what is known as the Three Chapters Controversy). There is a poster here called Isa al Misry who explained this very well. He also posts on Orthodox
Christianity.NET forums.
The Nestorian Assyrian Church of the East accepts the COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 451 AD as their Third Ecumenical Council and venerates both Martha Maryam and Mar Kyrillos as saints. The Assyrians reject the Council of Ephesus 431 AD as heretical moreover as Mar Cyril himself abandoned it. This is enough proof that Mar Cyril is a “Nestorian” who renounced his Monophysite heresy for Chalcedonian Orthodoxy at what scholars call “Cyrillian-Johanine Reconciliation Agreement” that accepts the two natures dogma as Orthodox.
The present Coptic Monophysite Church accepts the man Dioscoros of Alexandria as a saint despite this man Dioscoros of Alexandria being a murderer who was defrocked as a Bishop by the Holy Council of Chalcedon 451 AD. As you know, no Orthodox Bishop like Mar Cyril or Mar Theodoros of Mopsuestia has ever committed a terrible sin as murder!
Okay, you summed up the problems I have with Chalcedon perfectly well.
The statement that St. Cyril repented of his “Monophysite heresy” disgusts me. He never was a monophysite, ever. If that is so, the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Constantinople II are monophysite. Monophysitism is the theory that the two natures mingled, that the divine nature had swallowed the human nature, something which St. Cyril refutes in the 433 reunion.
And St. Cyril nestorian? Consider this quote by St. Cyril
“μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη - One Incarnate Nature of God the Word”
and
“We confess that He is Son of God and God according to the Spirit, Son of Man according to the flesh, not Two Natures to that One Son, One [Nature] worshipped the other unworshipped, but One Nature of God the Word Incarnate, worshipped with His flesh with One worship: nor Two Sons, One, Very Son of God and worshipped, the other the man out of Mary not worshipped, made by grace son of God just as men too are (St Cyril of Alexandria, Against Theodore of Mopsuestia, ch 11)”
The Council of Ephesus was never abrogated, how much Ibas and Theodoret would have wanted that, and neither was the mia physis formula.
And yes I’ve read the letter of Ibas to Maris, and it did say that St. Cyril repented of his “errors” and embraced the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of the heresiarch Nestorius) with the 433 reunion, if you have read St. Cyril’s later epistles you would have known that Cyril refuted that nonsense. Besides, in the 5th Ecumenical Council this letter was condemned and everyone who defended it anathematised. So reconsider if you want to continue defending it.
And yes, the fact that Nestorius himself and the Nestorian Church of Persia embraced the Tome of Leo and Chalcedon is an indication that something is terribly wrong with both. The definition of Chalcedon is disastrous, and can only be accepted as orthodox in the light of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. That Council (553) admitted that many interpreted Chalcedon in an heretical sense and saw Chalcedonas the rehabilitation of Nestorianism in the Church. After 553 however that was fixed. Funny thing is that the West and the Pope were heavily opposed to this and saw this as an insult to Pope Leo I.
Also Dioscorus was a very sensible man. He saw the Nestorian conspiracy coming. The unrepentent heretics Theodoret of Cyrrhus (the author of the twelve counter-anathemas against St. Cyril), Ibas of Edessa and others still resented their defeat at Ephesus and with the Eutyches affair they saw their chance to reintroduce their vile teachings into the Church. For that end they sought out a powerful ally and friend and found one in Pope Leo of Rome. Who was befriended and supported Theodoret, who never condemned Nestorius and was still a heretic.
In 449 Dioscorus sabotaged their sinister plots and excommunicated and deposed Theodoret and Ibas amongst others. However, for some strange reason Pope Leo I rehabilitated amongst others the still unrepentent nestorian Theodoret to his See even before Chalcedon.
In 451 when Theodoret entered Chalcedon the Egyptians wanted to oust him for being a Nestorian. The Roman legates and the nestorian orientals stepped in and came up with a Creed that absolutely rejected the * from two natures (ek duo phuseon)* and inserted in two natures (en duo phusesin). And if that wasn’t bad enough, the council declared Ibas and his heretical letter mocking St. Cyril and teaching nestorians “orthodox”. Luckily the 5th Council corrected that.
Besides, Dioscorus wasn’t an heretic. The council refused to condemn him for heresy, for he was orthodox. They could only depose him on procedural grounds. And about Dioscorus killing someone, I doubt it.
Also, I don’t think the RCC considers your teaching orthodox.
