Thread by @Wayne899111

A Thread on the recent disputations between @ScriptoriumP and @miaphysite3 pertaining to the formula of Reunion 🧵 (0/17):

(1.) As we can See here Miki has posited the claim that the formula of reunion clearly does not teach in two natures nor does it say it. There are a few justifications Miki can posit but do they really hold up to the historical record and logical consistency?

(2.) Firstly, the formula cited by Cyril was a formula that was the Standard of the Orientals and Easterners created in 431 at the counter Synod in Ephesus and delivered as a statement of Faith to Emperor Theodosius by Count John.

(3.) The only phrase omitted from what Cyril cited was the one of which we are concerned with, meaning John specifically appended the addition at the end as a demand of faith which cyril must subscribe to, the meaning being? Lets find out.

(4.) As you can see John specifically states it was for the difference of natures to be recognised, which, once Cyril assented to his appended part at the end of the formula he declared cyril to confess Christ having two natures.

(5.) John also creates a distinction between the separated sayings and then the difference of Natures, and as you can see, Cyril specifically in the letters cites what the ostensible difference of natures are, which according to john, is that two natures exist in him.

(6.) Now before we posit any argument, modern oriental Orthodox Scholars attempt to defend the statement by saying not only did Cyril explain what he meant in subsequent letters, but in fact Cyril had said these exact same words before the formulae was even made.

(7.) Contradicting them completely is Severus who goes through an evolution of being distraught, claiming that we need to find Cyril saying these words and that he did not say these words therefore there is no affirmation in the letter of what it means.

(8.) Now Severus went on to quote Cyril’s letters to Aristolaus but conveniently left out his description of the Easterners beliefs to the official, as he verbatim, explains the difference of natures and ascription of sayings.

(9.) Severus then tries to perpetuate a new argument, that it says ‘of’ as in past tense or descriptive content of ‘from.’

(10.) Amusingly, if that is the case, since the formula was created by the Easterners 2 years before they must have been miaphysite since the creed contained ‘of’! The same occurring with Flavian at the home synod of 448.

(11.) Then we come to the last argument, that without a doubt, is devoid of any intellectual activity. The claim is that Cyril explained what he actually meant to Acacius in letter 40 in which his explanation was Miaphysite, which Severus employs as an argument.

(12.) This argument is amusingly terrible on account of the fact that the formula Cyril assented to was created by the very people Orientals and Severus claim were nestorians 2 years before the reunion.

(13.) This ultimately means everyone understood the formula to profess two natures, as admitted even by their contemporary scholars today, yet Cyril explained it to maybe 2-3 priests in private letters.

(14.) This deceptive Behaviour from Cyril resulting from this argument means Cyril is responsible for the persecution of your saints, Chalcedon, The home synod 448 and all the subsequent behaviour of the Chalcedonians.

(15.) This is the equivalent of Athanasius walking up to a Semi Arian like Auxentius or Eudoxius and affirming a Semi Arian creed, then writing a private letter to a complaining priest about what he actually meant when he accepted the creed. Isn't that so ridiculous?

(16.) This is the person your ‘Miaphysite Champion’ Signed an agreement with. This is the legacy left behind by your fathers. The Academic and Scholarly Consensus overwhelmingly disagrees with the claims of your position on the formula.

(17.) Special mention: Paul of Emesa’s Homilies, John’s legate, who went to Cyril to have the reunion preached in the Alexandrian Churches and explicitly said ‘in two natures’.