Thread by @Nektarios01_

St Justinian the great, Concerning Cyril's Formula, "One Nature of God the Word Incarnate.

“Nevertheless, these enemies of the truth, by going beyond all the teachings of the fathers, but particularly those teachings ratified at the Council [of Ephesus] and set forth by St Cyril

in his condemnation of the blasphemy of Nestorius, interpret the formula found ni St Cyril's letter to Succensus, "One nature of God the Word incarnate." out of contest and inaccordance with their own opinions; and not only this, but, like all heretics, they also explain the

analogy of man and certain passages of holy Scripture to fit their error. But we will demonstrate the futilityof their understanding on this matter from Cyril's own words.

These men overlook what comes before and after this formula because they are so anxious to establish their

erroneous opinions. The father, for example, has written: "We neither divide the natures from one another after the union, nor do we separate the one and inseparable Christ into two sons, but we say there is one Son." Although he shows that one should not divide the natures after

The union, but confess that they have been united in Christ, the heretics overlook this and invent one nature composed of flesh and divinity. But the holy father did not say one nature composed of flesh and divinity as they imagine; for having said the nature of the Word is one

when contemplated without the flesh, he did not stop there, but he added the term "incarnate." to show us by this word the other, human nature.

However, obviously unsatisfied with this phrase, and wishing to reveal his thought more clearly, he immediately added this, which again

the heretics overlook: "So then, insofar as the manner by which the Only-begotten became man pertains to the mind, and to seeing with the eyes of the soul alone, we say thereare twonatures, but one Christ, Son, and Lord, who is the Word of God, and who became man and was

incarnate.

What could be more clear than these things, and how could anyone of sound mind still be in doubt concerning the confession of the two natures in Christ when the father has given us this teaching? But these heretics are so eager to distort in every way the orthodox

teaching that they add this to their empty arguments; they say that what is perceived with the mind and the eyes of the soul alone need not be confessed with the mouth. But nothing is more ridiculous than these absurdities of theirs! According to this madness, then, they will not

even confess God with their mouth since we know him only with the mind and the eyes of our soul. But even this father [St Cyril] himself spoke with his mouth-he even wrote with his pen--what he perceived with the eyes of his soul; and had he not spoken and wrote we could never

have understood what he perceived!

But if, according to these mindless heretics, it is improper to confesswhat we perceive with the mind only, how will they confess what belongs to the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, for though his Incarnation is visible, his divinity is

perceived only with the mind? If "With the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses unto salvation," so as the blessed apostle teaches us, then it is already clear that what is perceived with the mind is also confessed with the mouth; and as Gregory

the Theologian says: "A mind that cannot express its thoughts is dead.” It must be granted that unless one can be made holy with one's mouth, it is quite shameful and senseless for men who are spiritually perishing to haggle over a word as though they begrudged others its hidden

meaning! Therefore, all men of piety who receive the profound mystery of our great God and Savior lesus Christ must confess with their mouth the two natures of Christ: the divine and the human.

Again, when in his second letter to Succensus St Cyril grants the orthodoxy of

Succensus' faith concerning the Incarnation, at the same time he goes on to show his own opinion more clearly when he instructs him on these matters
and says
‘Your perfection has set forth the account of our Savior's Passion in a most trueand altogether reason. able manner. The

only-begotten Son of God, in that we know he is God, could not himself suffer the things of the body in his own nature, but he suffered them in his earthly nature. We must maintain of him who is the one, true Son both the impassibility of his divine nature and the passibility of

his human nature, for his flesh was what suffered’

These words reveal clearly that there are two natures, the divine and the human, preserved in one hypostasis, which is the one prosopon of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, for St Cyril says that both must be

maintained in the one, true Son. Now, there can be no denying that in adding these words, he clearly reveals to us how he under- stands this dogma, for the term "both indicates not one nature, but two. And when thisfather teaches that he suffered not in his divine nature, but in

his earthly nature, no one would be so foolish as to suppose that he is one nature; and so we are taught to confess that to suffer and not to suffer belong not to the same nature, but to one and the same hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, for things that are contrary to each

other cannot occur simultaneously in one and the same nature.”

Source: on the Person of Christ by St Justinian.

I wish I could edit tweets. 🗿