The Council of Ephesus
 "Behind the
Scenes"
by Mark Alessio
Part 1
"What greater prodigy could the world
behold,
than a woman become the Mother of God, and a God clothed In human
flesh?"
-----St.
Alphonsus Liguori +1787, Doctor of the Church
St. Proclus Speaks Out
Sometime around the year 428
A.D., an event
took place in the city of Constantinople, then the capital of the Roman
Empire, which helped to change the course of CatholIc devotional life
forever.
Those in attendance on that day would have noticed nothing unusual. Far
from it, in fact, for the setting for this occurrence was a liturgical
celebration being held in the city's cathedral. During this
celebration,
a spirited homily in praise of the Virgin Mary was delivered by St.
Proclus
[+446], who made the following observations:
"The reason we have gathered
here today is
the holy Theotokos Virgin Mary, immaculate treasure of virginity,
spiritual
paradise of the second Adam, workshop of the union of [Christ's two]
natures,
marketplace of the saving exchange, bridal chamber in which the Word
was
wedded to the flesh, living bush that was not burned by the fire of the
Divine birth, the true light cloud that bore the One Who, in His body,
stands above the Cherubim, fleece moistened by celestial dew, with
which
the Shepherd clothes His sheep."
One fact of this panegyric
strikes us immediately,
namely the speaker's keen grasp of the doctrinal ramifications of the
Divine
Maternity. In the best patristic tradition, he clothed his praise of
Mary
in the imagery of the Old Testament, presenting a colorful and rich
picture
of the promised Woman who carried the Living God in Her womb. He gave
pride
of place to Mary's title, Theotokos [Mother of God, or
"God-Bearer"]
and, as though to underscore his reflections, he returned to it at the
close of his homily: "Behold, holy Mary is openly proclaimed as
Theotokos."
Previous to this final proclamation of Mary's title, St. Proclus cited
the following scriptural passage from the prophet Ezechiel:
"And He brought me back to the
way of the
gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it
was
shut. And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be
opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of
Israel
hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut. [Ez. 44:
1-2]
The Church Fathers understood
this gate to
be the Ever-Virgin Mary:
"Today let Ezechiel, renowned for his
visions,
rejoice because his prophecy is in effect fulfilled. In Babylon he saw
a closed gate and said: Sealed up let it be, because by it the Lord
will
enter in. Mary is that closed gate. By it, Christ came into the world,
but He opened it not. Let disputations be silent." [St.
Ephrem
of Syria + 373, Hymn XV On the Blessed Virgin]
It is clear, then, that St.
Proclus was
so effusive in his praise of Mary's title, Theotokos, precisely
because he saw in it a safeguard for the integrity and truth of the
Incarnation.
The faithful, sitting in the cathedral at Constantinople on that
fateful
day, had no cause for alarm. The title, "Mother of God," was not a
novelty
suddenly thrust upon them by a flamboyant orator. It had been used by
Fathers
before St. Proclus. In fact, the oldest extant. prayer to Our Lady, the
Sub
Tuum Praesidium [dating back to at least the 3rd Century], contains
the words, "We take refuge beneath Thy protection, O holy Mother of
God."
The Catholics of the time would have understood-----intuited-----the
validity and aptness of the title, Theotokos, even in the
absence
of any doctrinal niceties. It was a part of their Catholic sensibility.
However, there was one person
listening to St.
Proclus that day who, far from being elevated by his homily, found it
to
be a cause of great internal unease. This person was named Nestorius
and
his title was nothing less than "Patriarch of Constantinople."
Nestorius
Nestorius [died c. 451] had become the
Patriarch
of Constantinople in 428. He derived his Christological ideas from a
school
of thought which originated in Antioch, and which placed a special
emphasis
on the humanity of Jesus. Two thinkers, both born in Antioch,
who
influenced the thinking of Nestorius were Diodore of Tarsus [died c.
390]
and Theodore of Mopsuestia [died c. 428].
Diodore of Tarsus, a bishop and
theologian, had
been a leading figure at the Council of Constantinople [381] and a
teacher
of St. John Chrysostom. In his reasoning, Christ represented both the Son
of God and the Son of Mary. Both, then, would be
Sons
of God, one by nature and one by grace, and Our Lady, therefore, could
not be viewed as the Mother of God, but simply as the mother of a man.
This contradicts the teaching that two natures [human and Divine] are united
in the one Person of Jesus Christ and, therefore, compromises the truth
of the Incarnation. In the year 499, Diodore was condemned by a synod
at
Antioch.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, bishop and
theologian,
was, like his friend Chrysostom, a student of Diodore. He taught that
Jesus
received the Logos [His Divine nature] and the Holy Ghost in
successive
stages and that, consequently, there was never a complete union
of Divine and human natures in Jesus Christ. Though he was respected
for
his orthodoxy during his life, some of his writings [particularly those
dealing with the Incarnation] were condemned after his death at the
Second
Council of Constantinople [533]. In a sermon preached at Antioch,
Theodore
strongly condemned the use of the title, Theotokos, for he
believed
that Mary could not be called "Mother of God" in the literal sense of
the
term, but only in an indirect way.
Not surprisingly, this unpopular
opinion caused
some unrest.
It was no mere whim which moved these
"Antiochene"
theologians to highlight the humanity of Jesus. This emphasis
was
the byproduct of their struggles against two specific heresies of the
time,
both of which presented false ideas of Our Lord's humanity and,
therefore,
of the Incarnation itself:
- The Arians denied
the
Divinity of Christ,
believing that He was not eternal, but was originated at some point in
time. Our Lord, they contended, was given a share in the Divine nature
of the Father because of His part in the Redemption. Therefore, He is,
at best, an inferior "divine being," situated in the created order
between
God and men.
- The Apollinarists
taught
that, while Christ
had a human body and a human soul, He did not have a human
rational
mind, this human mind, having been replaced by the Divine Logos.
They argued that, if Christ had a human mind, and human free will, He
could
have sinned, an impossibility if He had been possessed solely of a
Divine
mind.
It is easy to see how blatantly
these heretical
teachings contradict the Truth that two natures-----Divine
and human-----are united in
the One Person of Jesus Christ. The Redemption of mankind hinges on
this Unity
of Person, for by becoming-----actually
becoming-----man,
while still remaining God, Our Lord could fulfill all the
requirements
necessary to effect the Redemption. The transgression of Eden had been
committed by Adam and Eve, who, at the time, constituted the whole of
humanity.
Therefore, in the interests of justice, a member of the human race had
to atone for the transgression. However, this transgression had been
committed
against God, and what could men possibly have to offer God as a ransom
for their eternal souls?
The solution to this dilemma is the
most powerful
example ever given to the world of God's mercy and love . . . a mercy
that
doesn't ignore the right dictates of justice and a love that gives all
there is to give of itself. Through the Unity of Person, the
Incarnation
of the Second Divine Person, the ransom will be paid for Adam
and
Eve, and it will be paid by a man. But, also, the
merits
of this Man will be infinite, for He is God; His sacrifice, then, will
be
acceptable to the Father:
"Therefore because the children
are partakers
of flesh and blood, He also Himself in like manner hath been partaker
of
the same: that, through death, He might destroy him who had the empire
of death, that is to say, the devil: And might deliver them, who
through
the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to servitude." [Heb.
2: 14-15]
Obviously, then, to compromise
this Unity
of Person effected at the Incarnation, to separate the Divine and
human
natures of Christ-----or
to propose false theories which question the integrity of their union-----is
to strike at the very heart of the Catholic Faith.
In attempting to emphasize the full
humanity of
Jesus in the face of those heretics who denied it, some theologians,
such
as Diodore and Theodore, ended up by separating somewhat His two
natures.
Although they may have believed that they simultaneously defended Our
Lord's perfect
Divinity by stressing His full humanity, two wrongs do not make
a right. And it is not surprising to find Nestorius, influenced so
strongly
by such thinkers, delivering these words from the pulpit of his
cathedral
in Constantinople, words which did not sit well with his listeners:
"I am asked if it be lawful to
give to Mary
the Virgin the title of Theotokos [Mother of God] or if it be
right
to term Her simply Anthropotokos [Mother of a man]. Can it be
that
God has a Mother? . . . No, the creature has given birth not to the
Creator,
but to a Man, Who was instrument of the Divinity. The Holy Spirit, by
His
operation from which was born the Son of Mary, merely prepared for God
the Word a temple in the Virgin's womb."
Even today, some Protestant
"theologians"
employ the same reasoning as a means to strip Our Lady of Her rightful
and fundamental title, Mother of God. Although masquerading
behind
a facade of concern for the honor of Jesus, this argument is not only
simplistic,
but it displays little insight into the very reason for the
Incarnation,
let alone the Unity of Person effected by it. And, in the end,
regardless
of Nestorius' motives, the denial of the Blessed Virgin's title, Theotokos,
was-----and remains-----an
affront to Her honor and dignity. This denial of the Divine Maternity
did
not go unnoticed or unchallenged, as bishops wrote him in
consternation.
Supported by the Emperor Theodosius II [c. 401-450], Nestorius
continued
to spread his teachings with impunity.
Enter St. Cyril of Alexandria . . .
It is understandable that those
troubled by Nestorius'
erroneous teachings should appeal to other influential Churchmen for
help
in dealing with a situation requiring definite action, lest the
faithful
be led into wrong or muddled ideas concerning the very basis of our
hope
in Christ. Into the fray, then, stepped a pivotal figure in the
resulting
events, St. Cyril [+ 444], Patriarch of Alexandria and Doctor of the
Church.
Without mentioning Nestorius by name, Cyril, wrote a letter to the
monks
of Egypt, in which he remarked:
"I do not know how to express
my astonishment
when I see Christians hesitating to give the Holy Virgin the title of
Mother
of God. Since Our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how can the Virgin, who
gave
Him birth, not be the Mother of God? The Apostles have taught us this
truth,
even though the word Theotokos be not found in their writings.
The
Holy Fathers never hesitated to use the term . . ."
St. Cyril went on to defend the
Divine Maternity
in words whose clarity shines forth to this day:
"We know that the Eternal Word
existed before
Mary, and that from all eternity He abides in the bosom of His Father.
But in the Incarnation there is a Mystery, which we can in some measure
compare to that of human generaleration. All men who have ever been
born
are made up of soul and body. Our mothers gave us the corporal
substance
into which God has infused a soul. This fact does not hinder us from
saying
that they gave birth to a man
. . . . The union of soul and body
makes up the
one person who is called the man, therefore she who gives birth
to a man is truly his mother. After the same manner that the soul is
united
so strictly to the body-----so
indissolubly that one cannot separate them in the human person without
destroying the man-----in
the Incarnation the Word was united to Human Nature to be born in the
one
and Indivisible Person of Jesus Christ our Lord and God."
St. Cyril also wrote two letters
to Nestorius
himself. The second of these letters is of great importance, as it
would
later be approved by the ecumenical Council convened to deal with
Nestorius.
In this second letter, Cyril begins by charitably exhorting Nestorius
to
avoid scandalizing his flock and to heed the writings of the Fathers.
He
then lays out clearly and concisely the Church's correct teaching on
the
Incarnation and the Unity of Person. Among the relevant points
brought
out here are these:
- "We do not say that
the nature
of the Word
was changed and became flesh, nor that He was turned into a whole man
made
of body and soul . . .
- Rather did two different
natures come
together to
form a unity, and from both arose one Christ, one Son. It was not as
though
the distinctness of the natures was destroyed by the union, but
Divinity
and humanity together made perfect for us one Lord and one Christ,
together
marvelously and mysteriously combining to form a unity. So He Who
existed
and was begotten of the Father before all ages is also said to have
been
begotten according to the flesh of a woman, without the Divine nature
either
beginning to exist in the holy Virgin, or needing of itself a second
begetting
after that from His Father. [For it is absurd and stupid to speak of
the
One Who existed before every age and is coeternal with the Father,
needing
a second beginning so as to exist]."
- "In a similar way we say
that He
suffered and rose
again, not that the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails
or
any other wounds in His own nature [for the Divine, being without a
body,
is incapable of suffering], but because the body which became His own
suffered
these things; He is said to have suffered them for us . . . the Word is
said to have suffered death for us, not as if He Himself had
experienced
death as far as His Own nature was concerned [it would be sheer lunacy
to say or to think that], but because, as I have just said, His flesh
tasted
death."
- "This is the account of
the true
faith everywhere
professed. So shall we find that the holy Fathers believed. So have
they
dared to call the holy Virgin, Mother of God, not as though the nature
of the Word or His Godhead received the origin of their being from the
holy Virgin, but because there was born from her His holy body
rationally
ensouled, with which the Word was hypostaticlly united and is said to
have
been begotten in the flesh."
The Council of Ephesus
At last, St. Cyril took the matter
straight "to
the top," namely, 'the then-reigning Vicar of Christ, Pope Celestine I
[422-432]. Accusing Nestorius of heresy, Cyril sent the Pope copies of
his correspondence to Nestorius, together with a collection of
Nestorius'
sermons and writings of his own which challenged the errors of the
Patriarch
of Constantinople. On August 11, 430 the Pontiff replied to Cyril by
giving
him the authority to contact Nestorius with an ultimatum: recant within
ten days or be excommunicated and lose your episcopal Seat. By November
or December, the ultimatum was delivered by four bishops sent by CyriI.
Nestorius, however, had been working
on his own
behalf
by appealing to Emperor Theodosius to summon a general council to
examine
the situation and the differences which had caused such a stir. Even
before
Cyril's messengers had arrived, letters had been sent to all
metropolitans
by the Emperor, summoning them to a general council. With the Emperor
on
his side and a council in the works, Nestorius simply disregarded the
threat
of excommunication.
Pope Celestine saw the wisdom in
dealing with
Nestorius' errors by means of a council, and he sent two bishops there
as representatives of Rome. They were to judge the discussions, while
abstaining
from entering into the talks themselves. The Pope also sent a priest
named
Philip as his personal representative. Meanwhile, the Emperor sent a
personal
invitation to St. Augustine, unaware that the great Doctor had died the
previous August.
The dramatic aura which marked the
origin of the
Council of Ephesus did not abate in its first days. One account relates
that St. Cyril, accompanied by fifty bishops, and Nestorius,
accompanied
by sixteen, arrived in Ephesus on the same day, just prior to
Pentecost,
and that the other bishops balked when Nestorius proposed that they all
celebrate Vespers together. John, the Patriarch of Antioch [and good
friend
of Nestorius] wrote to explain that his group could not leave for
Ephesus
until after Easter, ostensibly due to a famine at Antioch, which gave
rise
to the probable speculation that he was delaying his departure so that
he would not be obliged to participate in any condemnations of his
friend.
In addition to the "heat" generated by personal tempers and feelings,
the
weather at that time was so hot that bishops fell ill, and some died.
John of Antioch sent word via two of
his bishops
that the opening of the council should not be delayed on his account,
and
that he would arrive within the week, but over sixty bishops petitioned
St. Cyril to defer its commencement until John's arrival. When John had
still not arrived more than two weeks after this, Cyril and a majority
of bishops determined to open the Council of Ephesus [the Third
Ecumenical
Council of the Church] on June 22, 431.
Perhaps in the back of their a minds
was the
thought that John's delay was not due to extraneous circumstances, to
but
was deliberate.
In the absence of any further
communication from
a Rome [although a letter from the Pope was on its way], the Council
was
convened. Nestorius, residing in a house surrounded by armed men
and regarding. himself as a victim of malice and slander on the part of
Cyril, refused to heed three summonses to appear at the First Session,
stating that he would only appear when all the bishops were together.
Most
of the bishops who had petitioned for a delay in opening the Council
were
still against the idea of opening the First Session at that time.
Nevertheless, the First Session opened
on schedule.
After a reading of the Nicene Creed, the second letter of St. Cyril to
Nestorius [quoted above] was read and judged to be in accordance with
right
doctrine, 126 bishops rising to give their thoughts on it. Nestorius'
reply
to Cyril was then read, at which the assembled bishops anathematized
Nestorius.
After a reading of Pope Celestine's letter to Cyril, a third letter
written
by Cyril to Nestorius was read. This letter set forth once again the
clear
teaching of the Church on the Incarnation, closing with the declaration:
"We have been taught to hold
these things
by the holy Apostles and evangelists, and by all the divinely inspired
Scriptures, and by the true confession of the blessed Fathers. To all
these
your reverence ought to agree and subscribe without any deceit. What is
required for your reverence to anathematize we subjoin to this epistle."
Appended to this letter were
Twelve Anathemas
[accepted by the Council] which Nestorius was bound to accept in order
to refute any charges of heresy. The first three will suffice to give
the
tenor of the whole:
"1. If anyone does not confess that
Emmanuel is
God in truth, and therefore that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God
[for
She bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh], let him be
anathema.
2. If anyone does not confess that the
Word from
God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one
Christ with His Own flesh, and is therefore God and man together, let
him
be anathema.
3. If anyone divides in the one Christ
the hypostases
after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity or
authority
or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let
him be anathema."
Then began a series of testimonies by
those who
knew and heard Nestorius speak, and a series of readings from the
Church
Fathers, which were compared and contrasted to Nestorius' own writings.
At the end of this First Session, all 198 bishops joined in signing the
sentence against Nestorius who, it must be remembered, was still under
excommunication and had stubbornly refused three summonses to appear on
that day. This sentence, which Nestorius refused to accept and which
was,
consequently, left hanging on the door of his house, read:
"As, in addition to all else,
the excellent
Nestorius has declined to obey our summons and has not received the
holy
and God-fearing bishops we sent to him, we have of necessity started
upon
an investigation of his impieties. We have found him out, thinking and
speaking in an impious fashion, from his letters, from his writings
that
have been read out, and from the things that he has recently said in
this
metropolis which have been witnessed to by others; and as a result we
have
been compelled of necessity both by the canons and by the letter of our
most holy father and, fellow servant Celestine, bishop of the church of
the Romans, to issue this sad condemnation against him, though we do so
with many tears. Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him,
has determined through this most holy synod that the same Nestorius
should
be stripped of his episcopal dignity and removed from the college of
priests."
Anyone who continues to doubt
that affection
and veneration for the Mother of God is an ancient and fundamental
element
of authentic "Christianity" need only observe the reactions of the
Ephesians
to the decree of the Council. We are told that crowds waited outside
while
the Council deliberated and, upon hearing its decision, the air was
filled
with cries of "Praise be to the Theotokos." The famous torch
lit
procession of Ephesus has been cited often as an example of that
special
love for Mary which has kindled the hearts of entire cities-----even
entire nations-----in
former times:
"And the populace of Ephesus were
drawn to the
Virgin Mother of God with such great piety, and burning with such,
ardent
love, that when they understood the judgment passed by the Fathers of
the
Council, they hailed them with overflowing gladness of heart, and
gathering
round them in a body, bearing lighted torches in their hands,
accompanied
them home." [Pope Pius Xl, Lux Veritatis,
1931]
Reprinted
from the May 2002 Issue
of Catholic Family
News.
CONTINUE FORWARD PART
2
 Contact
Us
HOME-------------------------------------------------------------HOUSE OF GOLD
www.catholictradition.org/Mary/council-ephesus.htm
|