The Proper Response to Ecumenism...

The Proper Response to Ecumenism According to the Example of the Handling of Nestorianism and the Divisive Theories of the Struggle Concerning Potentialism and Invalid Mysteries

Panagiotis Simatis, Theologian

We present in this article excerpts from the letters written to clergy, monks, and lay faithful by the protagonists of the Third Ecumenical Council, and, of course, those exchanged between Holy Patriarchs and Bishops, as all of them participated in the struggle against the heresy that shook the Church in the early 5th century A.D. Since the article includes extensive excerpts of texts in the ancient language (most of them untranslated, with the necessary, of course, annotations), we begin with a brief introduction in which the main points of the texts written by the President of the Third Ecumenical Council and Patriarch of Alexandria, Saint Cyril, and the Orthodox Pope of Rome, Saint Celestine, are presented. These are the following:

1. The Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, began to preach a Christological heresy, denying that the Virgin Mary gave birth to the God-man Jesus Christ; for this reason, he did not call her Theotokos.

2. The heresy he was preaching (in addition to other heretical and novel teachings) had already been condemned and rejected by the First Ecumenical Council, the Second Ecumenical Council, and other local councils, just as is the case today with Ecumenism. In other words, he was reiterating heretical positions of Arius, Apollinarius, Paul of Samosata, and other heretics.

3. The people of Constantinople initially, and subsequently the Patriarchs of other local Churches (Saints Cyril and Celestine and other clergy), reacted, denounced the heresy, and refuted the heretical positions of Nestorius through letters, while at the same time, many ceased communion with him, that is, they separated themselves from him (walling-off).

4. Nevertheless, even though the heretical positions of Nestorius and his persistence in them quickly became well known, the holy Patriarchs continued to regard Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, as a bishop and their concelebrant, with Mysteries and ecclesiastical authority. There is no hint or discussion that would leave the slightest suspicion that they questioned the Mysteries he celebrated (as invalid), nor those celebrated by the clergy who shared his views.

It is entirely evident that the Holy Patriarchs, and subsequently the Council, present Nestorius as a bishop of the Church who, however, by failing to fulfill the duties entrusted to him by Christ through the Church and his ordination at the hands of the bishops before him, became a characteristic example of a "hired shepherd," a false bishop, and thus a heretical "wolf" and "serpent," who, instead of providing spiritual and salvific protection and nourishment, spreads poison to his flock, wounding and devouring it.

5. Thus, in dozens and hundreds of references, the Saints criticize and emphasize not any invalid Mysteries he performs (there is no mention of invalid Mysteries) but the immense harm and spiritual damage caused by the false teachings of Nestorius, the poison he spreads, and therefore the vigilance and caution the faithful must exercise to avoid falling victim to his heretical ideas.

6. This great problem is addressed by the bishops (and preeminently by Saints Cyril and Celestine) in two phases. The first, as we have seen, began to be implemented immediately after the identification of Nestorius' false teaching and consists of arguments against him, the refutation of the heresy, the cessation of communion, and walling-off. At this stage, they demonstrate that what he teaches does not constitute the faith of the Church, that it has been condemned by the Church synodically in the recent past, that they desire him to heed their voice, to correct himself and repent, and they warn him that, otherwise, they will remove the office the Church has bestowed upon him.

The same course of action as that of the leading Saints Cyril and Celestine is declared to be followed and implemented (by those who had not yet put it into practice) by the bishops of other local Churches, who, through the exchange of letters, inform one another about the progress of the heresy, its consequences, and seek to coordinate for its common confrontation. Despite the fact that the processes of communication are time-consuming, that letters take a long time to reach their recipients due to the means of transport, that time is needed for translation, and so on, the issue is resolved within a very short period with the implementation of the second phase, which is the convocation of the Third Ecumenical Council and its condemnation of Nestorius and his like-minded followers. It is then that his priestly office is removed, and he is stripped of all clerical authority.

In concluding this introduction, it must be reiterated that in dozens of letters and hundreds of pages, there is constant discussion about the harmful influence of Nestorius' false teaching, how much it affects the faithful, how much poison and corruption it spreads, how much it blasphemes the Lord and the Theotokos, how much it distorts and perverts the faith, and how it hinders and nullifies the work of salvation. However, nowhere is there any mention of invalid Mysteries. The Church is not defiled if some individuals fall into heresy; rather, those who teach heresy and those who accept it are defiled. The Church remains undefiled and holy, as long as its Head is holy, despite containing corrupt members—the tares—as long as there will always be faithful who accept His teaching and commandments in their entirety and who, despite their weaknesses, sins, and misunderstandings, have a good disposition and zeal not to transgress His will or innovate willfully, as heretics do.

It is therefore abundantly clear that the Saints and the struggling Fathers and faithful of that era (as well as those of other ecclesiastical periods, as we have demonstrated in other articles) did not speak of, were not concerned with, and did not direct their attention to issues that (even if they troubled some) had the potential to disrupt the struggle against heresy and cause division. They had time after the fight against heresy to examine theological matters, always with a spirit of humility and understanding, "in the fervor of love," because almost always such issues lead to divisions and schisms.

They therefore struggled for the refutation of false doctrine through the cessation of communion with the heretical, without prolonged and harmful "economies" and novel theories about "until-the-right-time-ism" and "potentialism," without misdirecting the struggle through untimely, unnecessary—at that particular moment—and divisive disputes about the Mysteries. In this way, they confronted heresy directly, before it could scandalize and paralyze the consciences of the faithful, before it could take root, ensnare believers "in its nets," gain followers, expand, and serve interests and ambitions, before it could dangerously and perhaps irreversibly distort the faith and ethos of the faithful, and before the division could discourage the faithful's struggle.

The fear expressed by some contemporary faithful who argue, "How will we convince people to separate themselves if we tell them that the Ecumenists have valid Mysteries?" is partially understandable.

The answer is simple: as Christians, we cannot invent fears and dilemmas that Christians of other eras did not have. We cannot desire something different from what the Saints did. The Mysteries of condemned heretics are invalid. If they were also invalid for those who were not yet condemned, we would encounter this point in every step, in every letter of the Saints who fought against heresies, given that it is such an important issue, as some claim today. We are told that Ecumenism contains condemned heresies. Let us remind ourselves again and again that the Nestorianism under examination also taught false doctrines that had been condemned by many Councils, including Ecumenical ones.

Texts - Commentary

Nestorius has already proclaimed his heresy publicly in the Church and persists in it. He has been denounced by laypeople, monks, and other clergy, and Patriarchs have already intervened with their letters, in which they too condemn the heresy.

One of them is the Bishop of Rome, Celestine, who writes a letter to him. In this letter, he initially addresses Nestorius as a brother, since Nestorius canonically holds the throne of Constantinople as a bishop who, of course, has Mysteries and episcopal authority. At the same time, however, in this letter, he speaks to him in the strictest terms, vividly depicting the tragic consequences of his false doctrine and describing in it the archetype of a false bishop.

The first point he highlights is that, while the duty of a true shepherd is to provide the faithful with pure evangelical spiritual nourishment, Nestorius instead offers them POISON! Moving forward, he writes that, whereas the good shepherd takes care of the sheep, Nestorius, as a false shepherd, not only neglects the sheep and abandons them to the predatory intentions of heretical wolves but also has himself become a wolf to the sheep entrusted to him by Christ, devouring them.

And he asks: Where can the faithful turn to protect themselves from heretical ideas and find salvation when they are attacked by these ideas and spiritually killed within "ecclesiastical" environments, in their own parishes? It is entirely clear that here he speaks of canonical clergy with heretical ideas. And where can they find safety when, instead of protectors and helping shepherds, they have within their own household a predatory wolf—the Patriarch—and naturally the priests under his authority who obey him? While the Lord speaks of other sheep that were not yet in the fold but were to join the Church to be saved, you (Nestorius), not only fail to care for others, but even those you already had are lost because of you—they are devoured or persecuted!

It is terrifying, he continues, that the prophetic words of the Apostle Paul apply to you, who said that from within the ranks of shepherds—those who belong to and act as canonical priests of the Church (and are therefore more dangerous than heretics outside the Church)—there will arise "grievous wolves" who will not care for the faithful, will have no concern for the flock, but will instead teach them things that are anti-evangelical, heretical, and perverse, aiming to make them their followers and lead them to perdition.

These are the things we would want you (Nestorius, as Archbishop) to say, to speak of others in order to protect them from the wolves, and not for others to say them about you. Who does not suffer and feel pain seeing your case—where instead of a bishop teaching others, he must himself be taught that he ought to be a Christian? So pay close attention, realize what (Christ-opposing) heresy you are serving and in what way: you provoke, slander, and accuse the Orthodox. Does this suit someone who holds the office of priesthood? Or do you think we will pity you, when you yourself disregard the salvation of your soul? Do you think we will pity you, who wish to deprive both those living now and those who will live in the future of salvation through the spread of your false doctrine?

Here it is necessary to note that Nestorius indeed followed teachings espoused by Apollinarius, and the heresy of Apollinarianism had been condemned: by local councils in 377, 378, and 379 in Alexandria and Antioch, and, of course, by the Second Ecumenical Council of 381.

Gregory the Theologian had already condemned the teaching of Apollinarius, writing: “If anyone does not consider the Holy Mary to be Theotokos, they are without part in the divinity” and “godless.” This teaching of the Church was rejected by Nestorius, who initially allowed his like-minded followers, even in his presence within the Church, to teach it, that is, to refuse to call the Virgin Mary Theotokos and instead refer to her as Anthropotokos. This (in addition to other reactions from the faithful) compelled Saint Proclus (then a candidate for the Patriarchate of Constantinople) to refute this heretical position, and in a sermon "in the presence of Nestorius... he praised the divine motherhood of the Virgin Mary with a characteristic emphasis on the term Theotokos" (ACO, I, 1,1, p. 103). Nestorius himself, in a somewhat more moderate tone, presented his Christological positions regarding Christotokos instead of Theotokos in the years 328 and 329 (V. Phidas, Ecclesiastical History, p. 605).

It is evident, therefore, that Nestorius was reiterating a condemned heretical teaching, not by one but by many Councils.

The fact that the condemnation of a heresy does not mean that the heretic ceases to hold their priestly status is evident from the case where "in the local council of Rome (430), Nestorius' teaching was condemned, and his recantation was requested under the threat of deposition" (V. Phidas, op. cit., p. 607). How much more so when a heretic remains a member of the Church until the expression of a heretical position, even one previously condemned by an earlier council.

Subsequently, the same occurred with the council convened by Saint Cyril in Alexandria (430), the decisions of which he sent to Nestorius, requesting him to accept them: "These are the teachings we have received from the holy ones... Your reverence must agree with all these matters and align yourself with them without any deceit. What your reverence is required to anathematize has been outlined in our letter" (V. Phidas, op. cit., p. 608).

In another letter, this time from Celestine to the Patriarch of Antioch, John, we see that the heretic Nestorius is still referred to as a priest because he had not yet been deposed by a Council. He states that the distress caused by heretics outside the Church is less compared to when heretics are within the Church. When heresy exists within "the sacred Church of God" and is taught by an active clergyman, the sorrow is far greater. Specifically, he writes that "the lamentation is doubled" when this false teaching is propagated in Constantinople, "the greatest city," because there "a multitude of people gathers" (from all parts of the empire). The Bishop of Rome, Celestine, further emphasizes that the situation is much worse when the heretic is within the Church, performing the sanctifying and teaching duties of a shepherd but is, in reality, a false shepherd. In such cases, the situation is even worse than civil war because there is confusion among the faithful, as a heretic "in this very flock holds the position of a shepherd" and "within the very house of God, the weapons of impious religion (that is, heresy) are being sharpened." For this reason, "our innermost being is disturbed," because the heretical bishop Nestorius, "who appears to hold the Church of Constantinople," is pouring the poison of heresy into the souls of the faithful.

Since Nestorius continues to blaspheme against the Holy Virgin (teaching the people that she is Christotokos/Anthropotokos and not Theotokos), it is not safe for the faith and the people to continue exchanging letters with Nestorius (thus maintaining communion with him), because this ongoing discussion with a blasphemer and the repeated mentioning of his blasphemies during the debate (as is necessary to refute them), is, as Celestine states, A CRIME! For this reason, we are breaking ecclesiastical communion with Nestorius and all who follow him. We will not have communion with the Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, until he condemns in writing the heresy he publicly teaches in the Church. As for the Orthodox whom Nestorius has excommunicated or deposed, we will continue to maintain communion with them.

But Saint Cyril also writes significant things for those today who question certain ecclesiastical practices. He writes to Patriarch Juvenal of Jerusalem and initially expresses his hope and wish that "the most devout bishop Nestorius may follow the right faith." Who, he asks, would not wish that those who are ecclesiastical leaders remain steadfast in the faith? However, he continues, the opposite occurred in the case of Nestorius—namely, the one we expected to be a true shepherd (and let us not forget that Nestorius, while in Antioch, was a fierce opponent of Arianism!) has proven to be a persecutor of the faith. Therefore, with him (according to the words of the Lord), we cannot have peace but rather "an unrelenting and irreproachable war."

So I, he continues, sent him both a first and a second letter and "appealed to him as a brother," urging the heretic Nestorius to cease following his false ideas and to adhere to the apostolic faith that has been handed down to us. However, this well-intentioned effort of mine was of no avail. On the contrary, he continued to support and spread his heresy. Since the Bishop of Rome, Celestine, has also written letters to Nestorius, I am informing you of all this, seeking to stir you to "pious zeal," so that together (as Patriarchs) we may coordinate our efforts in the struggle against his heresy.

Saint Cyril, in his letter "To the presbyters and deacons, fathers of monks, and those among you practicing the solitary life," writes that he learned about Nestorius: "that certain grievous rumors have reached you, and some are going around unsettling your simple faith..." He addresses them with some words of counsel: "not so that you engage in contentious debates, but so that, if anyone approaches you, by opposing their sophistries with the truth, you may both escape the harm of being led astray and also benefit others, persuading them as brothers with the proper reasoning to hold in their souls the faith delivered to the Churches from above and from the holy apostles, as if it were a precious pearl." (p. 9). [Cyril of Alexandria, Concilia Oecumenica (ACO): Concilium universale Ephesenum anno 431, Tome/Volume/Part 1,1,1, p. 11, line 21].

Further down, he emphasizes the harm caused by heretics, and as we will see in all the texts of this collection concerning the period of the Third Ecumenical Council, NOWHERE is there any reference to the invalidity of the heretics' Mysteries. Everywhere and always, only the harm and defilement caused by heretics and experienced by those who commune with them are repeated. Saint Cyril writes: "The inventors of heresies, digging pits of vanity for themselves and for others, have slipped into this ruin of thought..." (op. cit., p. 11).

After this first letter from Saint Cyril, another letter follows addressed to Nestorius. And how does he address the heretic Nestorius, who teaches a heresy condemned by at least three councils, including the Second Ecumenical Council? As a “concelebrant”! So, did Nestorius have or not have Mysteries, even though he preached a condemned heresy? Saint Cyril writes: "To the most devout and God-fearing concelebrant Nestorius, Cyril sends greetings in the Lord" (op. cit., p. 21). He continues: "How can we remain silent when the faith is being wronged and so many things are being distorted? Or will we not stand before the judgment seat of Christ and will we not have to give an account for our untimely silence, though appointed by Him to speak what is necessary? … Or does your reverence think that the uproar arising in the Churches from such sermons is of little importance? We are all engaged in struggles and labors to somehow persuade those who think otherwise to move to the truth." And why, he continues, do you not correct your teaching "so that you may put an end to this universal scandal"? He exhorts Nestorius to call the Holy Virgin Theotokos "so that, healing those who are grieved and maintaining a proper reputation among all, we may hold our assemblies in peace and unity of mind among the people" (op. cit., p. 22).

It is evident that Saint Cyril's entire concern is for Nestorius to cease teaching false doctrine. Nowhere is there any mention of invalid Mysteries. He speaks only of the cessation of communion. As long as Nestorius continues to teach heresy as a bishop and "concelebrant," there is no unity of mind and peace, since the faithful people do not commune with him.

But even in his second letter, Saint Cyril again addresses Nestorius as his "concelebrant": "To the most devout and God-fearing concelebrant Nestorius, Cyril sends greetings in the Lord" (op. cit., p. 23). He then refers to him as a "brother in Christ" and says he will remind him of the evangelical "teaching and the need to proclaim with all certainty the word concerning the faith to the people, and to understand that to scandalize even one of the little ones who believe in Christ is intolerable in its outrage. And if indeed there is such a multitude of grieved ones, how could we not be in need of every possible effort to prudently remove the scandals and strengthen the sound teaching of the faith for those seeking the truth?" (op. cit., p. 24).

Nevertheless, at the end of his second letter, Saint Cyril extends a greeting through Archbishop Nestorius (the heretic who is teaching a condemned heresy!) to the Church of Constantinople under him: "Greet the brotherhood with you. They address you with us in Christ" (op. cit., p. 26).

In Saint Cyril's third letter to Nestorius (op. cit., p. 27), after again addressing him with the same greeting, "To the most devout and God-fearing concelebrant Nestorius, Cyril sends greetings in the Lord," even though it is evident that Nestorius persists in his heresy, he reminds Nestorius that his heretical assertions "are either the product of a misguided mind, brother, akin to the reasoning of the Greeks, or belong to the teachings of the deranged Apollinarius, Arius, and others of sickly heresies, or perhaps something even worse than theirs" (op. cit., p. 29). He reminds Nestorius that what he teaches has been condemned by councils and directly tells him to his face that he is a deluded false bishop: "Know that you are deluded, condemned here by the holy council as holding beliefs akin to the Manichaeans." Nevertheless, despite reminding him that he follows a delusion condemned by a council, he concludes by still considering him a brother and the bishop of Constantinople: "To all the brotherhood in Christ with you, both I and those with me send the warmest greetings. May you, most honorable and God-fearing master, continue in good health with our prayers for you" (op. cit., p. 30).

In another letter, drafted by Saint Cyril and the Council convened in Alexandria, where the heretic Nestorius is once again referred to as their "concelebrant," we read:

We cannot remain silent while you blaspheme the Lord with your teaching. "And if (with your blasphemies) you harmed only yourself by holding and teaching such views, the concern would be less. But since you have scandalized the entire Church and introduced into the people the leaven of an indecent and foreign heresy... what justification remains for our silence? [Note: Here too, there is no reference to harm from invalid Mysteries. The issue is the leaven of heresy, that is, the defilement.] When the faith is wronged, let respect for parents be abandoned as futile and precarious... and let death, then, be preferable to life for the devout, so that they may attain a better resurrection, according to what is written." (op. cit., p. 31).

Here, they remind him that they will implement the ecclesiastical tradition: "A heretical person, after a first and second admonition, reject." They counsel him, saying: "We advise you to abandon such crude and perverted doctrines, which you both believe and teach… and if your reverence does not act accordingly within the appointed time… know that you will have no share, place, or role among us in the clergy of God or among His bishops. For it is not possible for us to overlook the Churches being so disturbed, the people scandalized, the true faith being denied, and the flocks that you are supposed to save being scattered because of you… As for all those separated from your reverence for the sake of the faith or those deposed—whether laity or clergy—we are in communion with them all. For it is not just to allow those who hold the correct belief to be wronged by your decisions, simply because they have rightly opposed you for acting against the truth." (op. cit., p. 32). Here, the Synod under Saint Cyril tells him that he disregards and misinterprets the Nicene Creed, thereby making his heresy condemned even by the First Ecumenical Council: "It will not suffice for your reverence merely to affirm the Creed of the faith formulated at the time of the Council of Nicaea (for you have misunderstood and misinterpreted it incorrectly and distortively, even if you verbally confess its wording). Instead, you must explicitly and solemnly confess in writing and under oath that you also anathematize your own impure and profane doctrines." (op. cit., p. 32).

The Pope of Rome, Celestine, writes to Saint Cyril and compares him to the "most devout" Nestorius, whom he acknowledges as Archbishop of Constantinople while simultaneously attributing to him the characteristics of a hired shepherd and a false bishop, thus illustrating the Church's timeless teaching—from the Lord until today—about false shepherds. He writes: "Just as you are a good shepherd, so he is not even worthy to be accused as a bad hired hand, for he is not criticized for abandoning his sheep, but because he himself was found to be devouring them." (op. cit., p. 74).

What is the harm caused by the heretic? Is it that he performs invalid Mysteries? Neither does Saint Celestine teach us this. Where does he direct our thoughts? He says of Nestorius: "Having become a lover of impious innovation, wishing to serve his own ideas rather than Christ, and desiring to harm the people entrusted to him, he sought to poison them with the venom of his personal teachings. It is necessary to recognize and understand that vain disputes, which do not advance toward health but lead to the destruction of souls, must be avoided rather than sought... Christ our God taught us to act for the sake of even one sheep, wanting to bring it back on His shoulders, lest it fall prey to the wolf's ravaging." However, Nestorius, "forgetting this title and profession, turned himself into a wolf seeking to destroy the flock that he was obligated to preserve. Therefore, we are obliged to remove him from the fold of the lambs unless, as we desire, he corrects himself... But if he persists, there must be a clear decision against him. For such a wound must be cut off, as it does not harm only one member but wounds the body of the Church." Let it therefore be known to him, "that he cannot have communion with us if he persists on this path of distortion, opposing apostolic teaching." Our decision is therefore as follows: "Within ten days from the date of this notice, he must renounce his false teachings with a written confession... or if he fails to do so, your holiness shall immediately take measures to ensure his removal from our body by all means. He who refuses to accept the healing offered to him acts as a contagion, bringing destruction upon himself and all those entrusted to him." (op. cit., pp. 74–75).

Nowhere here does the Saint speak of invalid Mysteries. Not a single hint. His entire concern is the avoidance of the infectious disease of the heresy taught by Nestorius, the removal of the wolf from the sheep, since he leads them to perdition—not through invalid Mysteries, but through his false teaching. And this (what I write to you, Cyril, concludes Celestine’s letter), I have also written to the other Patriarchs so that "our decision about him, or rather, the divine decision of Christ, may be made clear"—namely, the removal of the episcopal office from Nestorius through deposition. Here we see how true bishops act, exposing the failure of today’s bishops who, despite the long-standing presence of Ecumenism, fail to fulfill their obvious duty to condemn the pan-heresy and expel the Ecumenists from the Church.

Following is a letter from Celestine to Nestorius (op. cit., pp. 75–81), in which he states that Nestorius’ teaching contains heresies and blasphemies. He remarks that Nestorius had a different reputation when he ascended the throne: "The expectations of those who believed well of you were deceived. For who would have thought that a ravenous wolf could be hidden within a sheep’s clothing? … Open your ears and listen to the words of Paul to Timothy and Titus. What else does he command but to turn away from the profane novelties of voices? For these lead to impiety and always produce thorns and thistles."

Everywhere and always, it is not about the invalidity of the Mysteries of uncondemned heretics, but rather the teaching is to distance oneself from them, to turn away from their heretical novelties, because these lead to impiety and perdition.

Do you not know, he asks him, the teaching of the Church concerning these matters, or do you know it and transgress it? If you know it and disregard it, "understand that you will be without excuse when He seeks an account from you for the talent entrusted to you, He who always expects a return on this holy investment of His through us... How do you presume to make statements on such matters, which are blasphemous even to think about? How does it befit a bishop to proclaim to the people such things that wound the reverence due to the virginal birth?... Who has ever been deemed unworthy of anathema, either for subtracting from or adding to the faith? For great indeed is the punishment that binds both the one who adds and the one who subtracts."

“Thus, we prepare the cauterization and iron because the wounds cannot otherwise be drained, and they are therefore worthy of excision... Understand this: after the first and second admonition from him (Saint Cyril), and now this third reprimand from us, you are completely excluded from our assembly and the council of Christians if you do not immediately correct the wrongs you have spoken.” It was previously believed by the faithful that you were “faithful and prudent.” Now, however, it is evident that “not only do you fail to provide nourishment in due time, but you also destroy those whom Christ gained with His own blood and death by poisoning them. For under your lips is poison, full of curses and bitterness, as we clearly see whenever you attempt to speak against what is truly sweet. Where is the care of the shepherd? A good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep, but the hireling leaves them to the wolves and surrenders them. But you, O shepherd, what will you do when you yourself devour the flock entrusted to you instead of wolves? To what fences can the Master’s flock flee for refuge when they are harmed within the very enclosures of the Church? What safety can there be when a supposed guard proves to be a predator?” Christ says, “I have other sheep not of this fold, and I must bring them also.” But while Christ brings in others, you lose those you already had. And, as is often apparent, whenever this happens, it is not the sheep who are lost by the shepherds, but rather the shepherds by the sheep. “And they will hear My voice,” He says. Why? “So that there may be one flock.” At His voice, there is one flock, but at yours, they are either harmed or driven away. It is grievous that the words of the blessed Paul from the Acts of the Apostles apply to you: “I know that after my departure, grievous wolves will come among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking twisted things to draw away the disciples after them.” We wished these things to be said by you to others, not to you yourself. For what we say ought to be taught by you, not learned by you. Who can bear that a bishop must be taught how to be a Christian? Take careful heed of the heresy you are involved in: you provoke, slander, and accuse. What of this is fitting for a priest? “A harsh response to harshness is sometimes necessary, if punishment by words is indeed a proper defense against blasphemy. Do you think we will pity you when you do not even pity your own soul? You wish to deprive all—those who have come, those present, and those yet to come—of the benefit of salvation. I pursue the enemies of my good Master as a faithful servant, for the prophet says to hate them with a perfect hatred. I am reminded again by another who says not to show mercy. To whom, then, shall I show deference here? Whom shall I honor when I see this being done and find the very foundation of all hope being taken from me?” It is the words of the Lord Himself in the Gospel that command not to prefer father, mother, children, or any other kin over Him. Often, a piety arises from which impiety is born, when the love of the flesh prevails over the love of God, who is Himself love. And then he continues: “I hear that great violence is being inflicted on the clergy who hold to the universal faith and with whom we are in communion, to the point that they are said to be excluded even from cities. We rejoice that they have earned the prize of confession, but we grieve that it is a bishop who is persecuting them... The nature of your disease neither accepts nor permits any truce.” Yet, “brother, we endure, beyond what is proper, even priests in the hope that they might be corrected.” He then tells him what this correction must entail if he desires it. Otherwise, if within ten days you do not confess the Orthodox faith, “you will be cast out from all communion with the universal Church.” (op. cit., pp. 75–81).

The next letter is from Celestine to the presbyters, deacons, and people of Constantinople. In it, Celestine again speaks of the corrupt teaching of Nestorius, through which "our members are being torn apart" (op. cit., p. 81), and assures them that he is deeply concerned lest "the persistence of the one teaching falsely turns your faith away from the path of truth. For Bishop Nestorius... preaches unlawfully and advises things to be avoided." He asks: "What hope will the flock have when the shepherd reveals himself to be a wolf and attacks the sheep so ferociously as to rage against each one? For it is with his mouth that they are torn apart, from which profane words are uttered. Instead of nourishing food, harmful food is offered." And he declares that they are "blessed" because they distinguish healthy nourishment from the "poison" offered by Nestorius, which they rightly reject (op. cit., p. 82).

"By what religion or what laws does he call himself a bishop, having rejected both the New and the Old Testament? For he casts out the very essence of his office, does not accept the truth revealed among us, and entirely misconceives the mystery of Christ, our God." Similarly, "Paul of Samosata, when he presided over the holy Church in Antioch, acted likewise. However, he was deposed from the throne, which he defiled by sitting upon it, through the united decision of the universal clergy. For such persons must always be cut off—those who disturb the soul of the Christian people and twist the Gospels to suit their own opinions, rendering themselves incapable of bearing fruit for God." (op. cit., p. 83).

And shortly after, he asks: "Do we consider this opinion fitting for your bishop—though still your bishop until now—if he does not believe what we believe? He has become foolish, he who claims to be wise… You, however, ought to be more diligent and vigilant so that you may resist the proclamations of the enemy. For the burden of responsibility is greater for you when things contrary to the Church are spoken to you from within the Church… Those who have the enemy within do not know rest." (op. cit., p. 84).

"Therefore, beloved brothers, since your comfort is from God… do not grow weary in resisting. He will provide strength… Our Master does not love a servant unless they are proven in trials. Christian souls are always trained in the arena of struggles." (op. cit., p. 85).

And this letter also concludes, addressing Nestorius: "If you do not explain concerning God, our Christ, those things that both the Roman, Alexandrian, and the entire Catholic Church understand, as well as the most devout Church of the Constantinopolitans understood until you, O excellent one, [according to the faith declared at the Council of Nicaea], and if you do not set aside this faithless novelty in accordance with the sacred and venerable Scripture within ten days from the day you are informed of this decision—numbered from the day of notification of this directive, concerning the evident and documented heresy that is condemnable—you will be rendered out of communion with every Catholic Church." (op. cit., pp. 87–88).

"To the beloved brother John, Celestine. We hope that, just as the essence of divinity is one, so too among all people everywhere, there is one truth of the Orthodox faith. Yet, the sigh is lessened if some separate themselves from the flock of the Master, hiding in corners and shadowy places, advising themselves or a few others in agreement with them in their hidden error. But when within the holy Church of God, one appointed under the name of priest leads the people of Christ astray from the path of truth into destruction by unsound counsel—and this occurs in the greatest city, where multitudes gather from all over the world due to the honor of the royal presence—then the mourning must be doubled, and the care greater, so that the ravaging of the wolf does not prevail. For there is less concern when the enemy besieges from outside than when he rages within the walls; and a wolf wandering outside the flock disturbs less than one who takes the place of a shepherd within the flock. Indeed, it is worse than civil war when, within the Church, that is, within the house of God itself, the weapons of impious religion are hurled. Hence, our very hearts are deeply troubled, for this man, who appears to hold the Church of Constantinople, pours distorted teachings upon the faithful people of Christ, contrary to the honor and reverence of the Virgin’s birth and contrary to the hope of our salvation. These things have reached us through the grief of the faithful, recognized through the books he himself sent, and, more convincingly, through letters sent to us bearing his signature, securing them in such a way that they could not be disputed. Thus, since prolonging a reminder of such causes is unsafe—for to remind of such matters is almost a crime, as it is an abomination to speak such sacrilegious things—we separate from our communion both Bishop Nestorius and anyone else who has followed him in speaking such things, until he condemns through written confession the distortion he has begun to teach, and declares that he holds the faith concerning the Virgin’s birth—namely, the salvation of humankind—consistent with the apostolic teaching upheld by the Roman, Alexandrian, and universal Church everywhere, and worships and confesses it. As for anyone, whether from Nestorius or others who followed him, who has been made excommunicated, stripped of the dignity of priest or cleric, or has been deprived of communion from the time he began to speak such things, we acknowledge that this person has remained in our communion and continues to remain so in the future, and we do not declare that he has been separated. For no decision of Nestorius could separate someone who had already demonstrated himself worthy of separation." (op. cit., pp. 88–89).

Another letter from Saint Cyril to Bishop John.

In this letter, he first informs him that in the Church of Constantinople, "there is great turmoil, and many have remained unsettled" due to the heresies "spoken publicly in that Church by the most devout Bishop Nestorius." He even sent the heretical positions to Rome, "and when those found in great Rome—the devout bishops—became aware of them, they held many synods and loudly denounced him, declaring plainly that he innovated a most grievous heresy."

"Greet the brotherhood that is with you" (op. cit., p. 90).

"To my most beloved brother and fellow minister in the Lord, Juvenal, Cyril sends greetings in the Lord. I had hoped that the most devout Bishop Nestorius would follow the footsteps of the righteous and adhere to the true faith (for who among those who think rightly would not wish that those entrusted with leading the flock of the Savior be most upright?). However, contrary to hope, the nature of events has turned out differently for us (the one whom we expected to be a genuine shepherd, we have found to be a persecutor of the true faith). Thus, we must remember the words of Christ, the Savior of us all, saying, 'I did not come to bring peace upon the earth, but a sword. I came to set a man against his father.' And if even war against our parents is blameless and irreproachable, indeed even worthy of all praise, when we have determined to contend for the glory of Christ, how can it not be absolutely necessary, though with tears for losing a brother, to gird ourselves with godly zeal and proclaim to the whole world, 'Whoever is on the Lord’s side, let him come to me'? I, for my part, sent him both a first and a second letter, beseeching him as a brother not to follow his own ideas but to adhere to the true and apostolic faith handed down to the Churches, hoping to free him from the harshness of his writings. But the medicine of goodwill did not help; my advice was ineffective, and he was so far from being willing to adhere to the doctrines of truth that he even sent me a letter bearing his own signature, in which he rebukes me, as if grieved, and clearly confesses that the Holy Virgin is not Theotokos, which is plainly to say that Emmanuel is not truly God, upon whom we base our hopes of salvation. Believing that he might also sway the Church of the Romans, he wrote to my lord, the most devout and God-fearing brother and fellow minister, Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church, inserting the distortions of his doctrines into his letters. He also sent many expositions, from which his distorted beliefs have been exposed, and he has therefore been firmly condemned as a heretic. Since the aforementioned most devout and God-beloved Bishop Celestine of the Roman Church has written openly about him and sent letters to me, I thought it necessary to send these to your godliness, sharpened at their source, to stir your pious zeal through this letter, so that with one soul and a unified effort, we may gird ourselves with love for Christ, save the endangered people, and establish the Church, thus made resplendent, by being united with one another in all things and writing to him and to the people according to the prescribed form. If we succeed in helping and turning him back to the truth from what he has disregarded, we will have gained a brother and saved a shepherd. But if our advice proves ineffective, he will write his own condemnation upon himself and reap the fruits of his actions. We must necessarily write to the Christ-loving and most devout emperor and to all those in authority, advising them not to prefer a man over piety toward Christ, but rather to grant the world certainty in the true faith and to deliver the flock from an evil shepherd if he does not yield to the counsel of all." (op. cit., pp. 94–96).

In the letter of Cyril himself to Bishop Acacius, we read the following:

“For the most reverend Bishop Nestorius was not content with saying things in the church that scandalized and undermined faith in Christ, the Savior of us all, but he also endured that a certain Bishop Dorotheus dared to say openly in the church and assembly: ‘If anyone says that Mary is Theotokos, let him be anathema.’ What then shall we do, being anathematized in the Church of the Orthodox together with the holy fathers? … Therefore, the holy fathers, who are anathema before God, and all those who follow the true doctrines of the truth and confess Christ as God, are condemned. And the harm from this matter is not limited to these, but the opinions of the people have also been perverted… For if we had zeal for God and were imitators of the fathers’ love for God, we would have long ago taken action against those who dared to blaspheme against Christ and anathematize both us who are alive and the holy fathers who are already with God, by issuing a pious decree, through which the people wronged in faith might have been healed” (Op. cit., pp. 96-97). The same points are reiterated in the letter “To those who accused him in writing…” (Op. cit., p. 107).

Below (Op. cit., pp. 99-100), we encounter the "Protest publicly presented against the clergy of Constantinople and against the Church, demonstrating that Nestorius is of the same mind as Paul of Samosata, who was anathematized 160 years ago by the Orthodox bishops":

"I adjure the one receiving this document by the Holy Trinity to make it known to bishops, presbyters, deacons, readers, and laypeople residing in Constantinople and to distribute copies to them for the refutation of the heretic Nestorius, showing that he is of the same mind as Paul of Samosata, who was anathematized 160 years ago by the Orthodox fathers and bishops. The statements made by either of them are as follows:

Paul said, ‘Mary did not give birth to the Logos.’

Nestorius, agreeing, said, ‘Mary did not give birth to the divinity, O most excellent one.’"

Paul: "For He was not [in existence] before the ages."

Nestorius: "And they assign a temporal mother to the divinity of Him who is the Creator of time."

Paul: "Mary received the Logos, yet she is not older than the Logos."

Nestorius: "How then did Mary give birth to one older than herself?"

Paul: "Mary gave birth to a man, equal to us."

Nestorius: "The one born of the Virgin is a man."

Paul: "Yet superior in every way, because of the Holy Spirit, the promises, and the grace upon Him as written."

Nestorius: "For I have seen, he says, the Spirit descending like a dove and remaining upon Him, granting Him ascension (he commanded, he says, the apostles whom He chose, and through the Holy Spirit He was taken up). This same Spirit bestowed upon Christ such great glory."

Paul: "So that the one anointed from David would not be alien to wisdom, nor would wisdom dwell in another in this way. For it was in the prophets, even more so in Moses, and in many rulers, but most fully in Christ as in a temple. Elsewhere he states that Jesus Christ is one, and the Logos is another."

Nestorius: "Is it permissible for the one born before all ages to be born again in another way, and this time as divinity?"

"Behold, it has been clearly demonstrated, as the transgressor says: 'The one begotten of the Father was not born of Mary.' Behold, he agrees with the heretic Paul [of Samosata], who says that the Logos is one, and Jesus Christ is another, and that they are not one, as Orthodoxy proclaims. ... These assertions are also in harmony with the words of the blessed Bishop Eustathius of Antioch, one of the 318 bishops of the holy and great council, who states thus: 'Not merely man, but also God.'" (Ref. same, pp. 99–100).

Greek source: https://paterikiparadosi.blogspot.com/2019/10/blog-post_72.html