UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 1

I. Introduction

St. Cyril of Alexandria towers among the greatest Christian theologians in the history of the
Church. He also stood as one of the major ecclesiastical players of his era, who would leave a
legacy for future generations to cherish and hold dear. For the Easter Church, he is the father of
Orthodox Christology, par excellence.

Among his greatest contribution was his theological method. He developed the ecclesiastical
way of defending Orthodox theology from “proofs from Scriptures” to also include “proofs from
the Father.”1 To be sure, he could not claim to be the first to employ “proofs from the Fathers.”
However, nobody has employed this method with such skill and erudition until St. Cyril.2

The greatest contribution he would give to Mother Church will be his staunch defense of the
title, Theotokos and his insightful articulation of Orthodox Christology. This paper shall first
takle the life and background of St. Cyril. Then it proceeds to expound some of the ecclesiastical
players and theologies that vied for ecclesial approval during that time. One of the greatest
controversies of his time, the Theotokos, will be expounded. Then his Christology will be
explored. Finally, the paper discusses the Church Councils and decretals that were conducted and
promulgated to face the controversies.

II. St. Cyril of Alexandria: Life and Background

St. Cyril was born between 370 and 380 A.D- died on June 27, 444 A.D. Long celebrated as a
saint in both East and West, in 1882 he was declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Leo XIII. 3
The “Seal of the Fathers, Great Father, the Pillar of Faith and the Lamp of the Orthodox Church!4

It is likely that Cyril was born in Egyptian metropolis (Alexandria). Today the second largest city
in Egypt, Alexandria was founded in the fourth century BC by Alexander the Great as a link
between Greece and the fertile Nile valley. Within a century it had become the largest city in the
Mediterranean world and the leading center of Hellenistic culture. It was the capital of Egypt for
almost 1000 years, as well and the home of the world’s largest library until the Islamic conquest
in the seventh century AD.
1
Quaste, Patrology, 135.
2
Quasten, Patrology, 135.
3
Saint Cyril of Alexandria: Christian Theologian. https://www.britanica.com/biography/Saint-Cyril-of-Alexandria.
4
Ibid.
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 2

Alexandria was also the home of the largest Jewish community in the ancient world. It was this
community which produced the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures in the late second century BC. The Septuagint was used by Christians from the
beginning of the Church and is quoted regularly in the New Testament. It became the basis for
the Latin and other translations that were developed with the spread of the Gospel in the first
millennium. By the time of St. Constantine, the Great, when the persecution of Christians ceased,
Alexandria was the intellectual center of the Church, home to such theologians as Clement of
Alexandria and Origen.

Egypt was also the spiritual center of monasticism which first arose there with Saints Anthony
and Pachomios. When local Churches were ranked at the First Ecumenical Council, Alexandria
was declared the first see after Rome. With the establishment of Constantinople a few years later
as the “New Rome” a rivalry grew up between these two Churches, which was only resolved at
the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451) when the imperial capital displaced Alexandria
as the second see in Christendom.5

He trained his mind and body by practicing the works of righteousness and virtues for a period of
time.6 He was raised by his uncle Theophilus at the school of Alexandria where he was educated
in its Language, Theological and Philosophical subjects needed to defend Christianity and the
Orthodox faith.7 His education showed through his knowledge, in his writings, of Christian
writers of his day, including Eusebius, Origen, Didymus, and writers of the Alexandrian church.
He showed a knowledge of Latin through his extensive correspondence with the Bishop of
Rome, Celestine. His formal education appeared normal for his day: 390-392 grammatical
studies at ages 12 to 14, 393-397 Rhetoric/Humanities at ages 15 to 20, and 398-402 Christian
theology and biblical studies.

After he learned a great deal of these subjects, his uncle sent him to the monastery of St.
Macarius in the wilderness. There, he became a disciple to a righteous old monk called
Sarabamon. He taught him the church books, and the sayings of the pure fathers… He became
well known for his vast knowledge, his great righteousness, and his deep influence in his
5
Mark J. Joshua. Alexandria, Egypt. https://www.ancient.eu/alexandria/
6
The Departure of St. Kyrillos (Cyril) the First, the Twenty- Fourth Pope of Alexandria.
https://st-takla.org/books/en/church/synaxarium/11-abeeb/03-epep-kyrillos.html.
7
St. Cyril of Alexandria. http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6385.0.
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 3

teaching. After he spent in the wilderness five years, Theophilus sent him to Abba Sarapion, the
honorable bishop, so he increased in wisdom and knowledge. Shortly after, the bishop returned
him to Alexandria. His uncle was rejoiced, ordained him a deacon, appointed him a preacher in
the cathedral and made him his scribe. Whenever Cyril gave a sermon, he captured the hearts of
his listeners with his eloquence, fluency, and his strong influence.8

In 403, he went to Constantinople in the retinue of his powerful uncle. It was here that he took
part in the so-called "Synod of the Oak" which deposed the Bishop of the city, John (later known
as "Chrysostom").9 Theophilus had governed the Diocese of Alexandria as Bishop since 385
A.D. with a prestigious and iron hand. Upon Theophilus' death (perhaps 3 days after- October 15
(death), October 18 (election as Bishop in 412), the still young Cyril was elected as Bishop of the
influential Church of Alexandria, which he governed energetically for 32 years, always seeking
to affirm her primacy throughout the East, strong also because of her traditional bonds with
Rome.10 St. Cyril followed Theophilus after Athanatius as the Bishop of Alexandria in the
position that had become powerful and influential, rivaling that of the city Prefect. St. Cyril
continued Theophilus’ policies, i.e., pressure against pagans, heretics and Jews, support to the
great monastic communities, cultivating the alliance with Rome and opposition to the growing
influence of the Patriarchy of Constantinople, intimately allied to the imperial throne.11

His early years as pope were caught up in the problems of an Alexandrian city where the
hostilities among the various Christian factions, Jews, and pagans brought frequent violence. In
addition, there was the rivalry between Alexandria and Constantinople and a clash between
Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of ecclesiastical reflection, piety, and discourse. 12 These
issues came to a head in 428 when the see of Constantinople became vacant. Nestorius, from the
Antiochian party, was made Archbishop of Constantinople on April 10, 428, and stoked the fires
by denouncing the use of the term Theotokos as not a proper rendition of Mary's position in
relation to Christ.13
8
Ibid.
9
Benedict XVI. General Audience, St. Peter’s Square, Wednesday, 3 October 2007.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20071003.html.
10
Ibid.
11
Carmen Chica. Alexandria: History and culture.
https://publicacions.iec.cat/repository/pdf/00000245/00000004.pdf
12
St. Cyril of Alexandria. http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6385.0.
13
Dragas, Rev. Goerge D. A Profile of St. Cyril of Alexandria.
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 4

Cyril and the Alexandrian party crossed swords with those of the Antiochian party in the
imperial home court. After much in-fighting, Augusta Pulcheria, older sister of the Emperor
Theodosius II, sided with Cyril against Nestorius. To rid himself of Cyril, Nestorius
recommended to the emperor a council in Constantinople. But, when Theodosius called the
council it was in Ephesus, an area friendly to Cyril. After months of maneuvering the Council of
431 ended with Nestorius being removed from office and sent into exile. 14 Cyril wrote
extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the 4th and 5th
centuries. He was a central figure in the Council of Ephesus in 431 which led to the deposition of
Nestorius as Archbishop of Constantinople. 15 Cyril is among the patristic fathers, and his
reputation within the Orthodox Christian world has led to his acquiring the title "Seal of all the
Fathers"- “the guardian of exactitude" - to be understood as guardian of the true faith.16

II. Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria:17

 On the Unity of Christ

 Commentary on the Twelve Prophets

 Festal Letters 1-12

 Festal Letters 13-30

 Five Tomes Against Nestorius and Other Works

 Commentary on John

 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem

 St. Cyril of Alexandria Letters 51-110 (Fathers of the Church)

 On the Lord's Prayer

https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/01/profile-of-saint-cyril-of-alexandria.html
14
Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the church.
http://reginamag.com/saint-cyril-alexandria-bishop-confessor-doctor-church/.
15
Cyril of Alexandria. https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/643813.Cyril_of_Alexandria.
16
Benedict XVI. General Audience, St. Peter’s Square, Wednesday, 3 October 2007. .
17
Books by Cyril of Alexandria. https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/cyril-of-alexandria/446750/
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 5

 Exegetical Commentary of the Gospel According to John

 Three Christological Treatises

 Christological Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten

 Gospel of Saint Luke with Commentary by Saint Cyril of Alexandria: Sermons 1-80

 Gospel of Saint Luke with Commentary by Saint Cyril of Alexandria: Sermons 81-156

 Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke

 Commentary on Isaiah

 A Commentary Upon the Gospel According to S. Luke

 Commentary on the Book of Exodus: First Discourse

 Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets (Fathers of the Church)

III. Theotokos and the Nestorial Controversy

A. The Theotokos Controversy

It is universally acknowledged that the Nestorian controversy was fundamentally Christological,

but because of the occasion which originated it, Mary figured large in dispute. 18 In one of the
sermons of Cyril who was the bishop of Alexandria on that time, he named Mary as the
Theotokos (the one who gave birth to God).

However, Nestorius, who was recently appointed bishop of Constantinople and a well-respected
Theologian in the field of Christology reacted to this pronouncement “by saying that such a
designation had to be balanced by the term Anthropotokos (the one who gave birth to man) in
fact, strictly speaking, God did not take origin from a creaturely human being, and Christotokos
would be better all round.”19 Though some of the authors and historians would insist that it was a
deacon who countered Cyril’s stand on Mary, “by the end of 428, one of the Antiochene clergy

18
The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, ed. by Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, and Daniel A. Keating, MPG Books,
Bodmin, Cornwall, Great Britain, 2003, p. 55.
19
Ibid.
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 6

whom Nestorius had brought with him to the capital began to preach against the Theotokos, the
title Mother of God as applied to Mary: ‘Let no one call Mary Theotokos, for Mary was only a
human being and it is impossible that God should be born of a human being.’”20

Yet for the sake of maintaining the argument between this two prominent figures in history, we
shall use the name of Nestorius as having the authority in his office. Upon hearing this, Cyril
made a response to this reaction by writing letters to the bishop of Rome, to the monks and to
Nestorius himself. It was year 429 that the controversy begun. One of the notorious things Cyril
did was to draw up 12 Anathemas, and the first provides another indication of how Theotokos
was core to the debate:21

If anyone does not acknowledge Emmanuel to be truly God and

therefore the holy Virgin to be Theotokos (for she gave birth
according to the flesh to the Word of God made flesh), let him be
anathema.

These anathemas formed the basis of treatise and counter-treatise as the battle developed.
It will suffice as a reminder of the place of the Holy Virgin, Theotokos, at the heart of the
debate.22 For Cyril, he really defended that title of Mary by giving logical syllogism:

1. Jesus Christ is God

2. Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ

3. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God

B. Adam and Eve: Type and Recapitulation

Cyril’s massive treatment of the Pentateuch known under the title, On Worship in Spirit and in
Truth23 became the starting point of his defense in Theotokos. By presenting the great figures of

20
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 140
21
The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, ed. by Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, and Daniel A. Keating, MPG Books,
Bodmin, Cornwall, Great Britain, 2003, p.56
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 7

the Old Testament and the law as a pedagogue, all leads to the thrust of his treatment that “God is
the Liberator and Saviour.”24 What Cyril meant was “God’s intention was graciously set out in
Scripture if we only read the scriptures aright.”25

This leads to his focus on the transformation of the whole human race through the grace of God
including Adam and Eve. With due comparison, Cyril’s extensive presentation of type lies on the
two features of early Christian use of this term. The first is the discernment of exemplars by
which the person became mora than an imitation but rather a recapitulation. Second is “the
notion that prophetic types, images or patterns were etched into the narratives of what had
become the Old Testament, symbols of what was to come.” 26 This linking idea of the Old
Testament to the New leads to a better understanding of why Mary should be considered as
Theotokos. One emphasis is on the typological relationship between Eve and Mary and likewise
with Adam and Christ. As Justin Martyr first introduced in the second century:

Christ became man by the Virgin in order that the disobedience which
proceeded from the serpent might receive it destruction in the same manner in
which it derived its origin. For Eve who was a virgin and undefiled, having
conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But
the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the
good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the
power of the Highest would overshadow her… and she replied: ‘Be it unto
me according to thy word’27

“In elucidating what that recapitulation was Cyril again exploits Paul. 1 Corinthians 15 is the
key, with cross-reference to Galatians 3:13 and Romans 5. Christ is the last Adam, recapitulating
and reversing the fall of the first. By being a ‘type’ of Christ, Adam is prophetic of the mystery of
the Incarnation, of Emmanuel, God with us. The first Adam brought us to death, the curse,
judgement; the second to life, blessing and righteousness. Adam brought the woman to himself
so as to become one flesh and was destroyed through her; but Christ saves, drawing the Church

24
Ibid. p. 58
25
Ibid. p. 59
26
Ibid. p. 60
27
Ibid. p. 62 (Dialogue with Trypo 100 (ET Ante-Nicene Fathers))
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 8

to himself through the Spirit. Here is an oblique hint that Eve and Mary will become vital to the
Fall and Redemption pattern in Cyril’s theology.”28

To summarize this idea of Type and Recapitulation in line with the Fall and Redemption of
humanity, Irenaeus further developed this typological parallel as the key to anti-gnostic polemics.
“Adam’s creation from the virgin earth was a type of Christ’s formation from the Virgin Mary.
Mary’s obedience undid the knot of Eve’s disobedience, so that Mary becomes the cause of
salvation for the whole human race, and Eve’s advocate.”29

Moreover, it is in this context that the role of the Virgin Mary became the one from whom he
took his ‘temple’:

“You should not think that the Word was transformed into flesh but
rather that he dwelt in flesh, using as his own particular body the
temple which is from the Holy Virgin.”30

“The voluntary self-emptying and enduring of birth for us is emphasized again when Cyril
discusses the prophecies of Messiah in Isaiah 11. Thus, the Kenosis involved in birth from a
Virgin has become a significant element in Cyril’s understanding of the recapitulation. The
Virgin already had a vital role in the overarching narrative that was foundational for Cyril’s
reading of Scripture and for his theological thought prior to the controversy.”31

IV. Christology of St. Cyril

Since the early Church Fathers did not produce a systematic account of their theology, which we
will find only in later theologians like Thomas Aquinas, the researchers have devised an artificial
framework with which to expound St. Cyril’s rich Christology. St. Cyril’s complex theology will
be approached from the angle of three questions: “What is his Christology?” “How does he
account for his Christology?” and “Why this Christology?”

A. What is Cyril’s Christology?

28
Ibid.
29
Ibid. p. 63
30
Ibid. p. 64.
31
Ibid.
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 9

1. Henosis

The ecclesiastical controversies have now moved from clarifying the divinity of Christ, to
articulating the relationship between the divinity and humanity of Christ. The distinctive
Christology of each ecclesiastical player will now be defined by how he articulates the
relationship of the two nature of Christ.

According to Johannes Questen, St. Cyril rejected the terminology of Nestorius in describing the
relation of the human and divine natures as “indwelling” “connection” “close participation” 32
Indwelling would equate the relationship with the indwelling of the God among his saints.
Connection was considered too weak to express the significance of the union. Close participation
would mean that the unity is simply a unity of dignity or a moral unity. Equality of dignity or
will does not sufficiently convey the orthodox teaching on the two natures.33

Against Nestorius’ terms, St. Cyril preferred henosis, which means “union” or “unification.” The
relationship of the Divine Logos and human nature is a henosis of the two natures into one,
without mixing the two natures; preserving both without change.

It was important for St. Cyril to stress that the Logos united himself with a mindless flesh, as
Apollinaris taught. A mindless flesh does not encompass the entire human nature. Rather the
Logos is united with the complete human nature: corporeal body and intellectual soul. Therefore,
there was a human intellect and human will in Christ.

How do we understand this union of human nature and divine nature? St. Cyril employed many
analogies, but apparently the best analogy is the union between the bod and the soul in a human
person. The union of the two distinct natures produces a single reality, the human person.

“These are quite different things, and they are not consubstantial with each
other, yet when they are united they constitute the single nature of man, even
though the difference in nature of the things that are brought into unity is still
present within the system of the composition (2nd letter to Succensus para 3.)

The analogy showed that it was possible to envision a union of two different natures, without
destroying the respective elements. It is important to stress that the union did not result in a
32
Questen, 139.
33
Questen, 139.
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 10

mixing or mingling of the two nature. The henosis McGuckin results in the “God-enfleshed-in-
history,”34 without destroying the two nature. The point of this analogy is to show that as a
human being is one entity, thus Christ is one entity. He is one entity, not one quiddity or nature. 35
This will be an important point, that will be carried over to his next concept, the mia physis.

“We are composed out of souls and body and observe two different natures (duo physeis), the
body’s and the soul’s; yet the pair yields a single united human being […] produces a single man,
a composite of soul and body.”36

However, a word of caveat must be given because the resulting union of the body and soul is a
tertium quid, a human person. Thus there is the danger that the analogy may interpreted as
resulting to a tertium quid that is not fully divine nor fully human. This later gave rise to
Christological heresies and problems like monophysetism. 37 The union of the two does not result
in a new nature. According to Thomas Weinandy, it is in the analogy of the union of body and
soul that we understand Cyril’s formula Mia Physis.

2. Mia Physis

One of St. Cyril’s favorite formula for his Christology is “mia physis.” Etymologically it comes
from Mia: “one” and Physis: “nature” or “individual subject/reality.” By mia physis St. Cyril
means that there subsists only one individual reality. There is “One enfleshed nature of the
Word.” St. Cyril’s complete formula is: “mia physis tou theou logou saserkomene.” This is
translated as, “The One Enfleshed Nature of God the Word.”

St. Cyril clung to this formula because he thought it was from St. Athanasius, when in fact it is
really from Apollinaris and has heretical undertones. In response to St. Cyril’s formula, Nestorius
would go on to accuse him, “They confuse his divine and human (qualities), saying that the
union with flesh resulted in one nature… even as the soul and the body are bound (together) in
one nature in the body […]”38 Nestorius accuses St. Cyril of proposing that the union of divinity
and humanity resulted in one nature, mia physis.

34
McGuckins, 200.
35
Weinandy, 36.
36
Ad Suc, I, 7.
37
Footnote, McGuckin, 33-34.
38
The Bazaar, pp 8-9.
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 11

The cause of the confusion lies in the different uses of the term. St. Cyril employed the antique
sense, which connotes “a concrete reality,” suggesting “individual subject”

Nestorius and his Antiochene companions used the term in its Aristotelian connotation, which
refers to “physically constituted nature” or “defining natural qualities.” Thus the Antionchenes
understood him to say, “the incarnation merges God and man into a single reality of a new
divino-human nature,” thus creating a new divino-human nature, a union that results in a third
and new essence/nature. Antiochenes believed that in speaking of mia physis formed out of two,
“ek duo,” he meant the union formed a tertium quid, in which the divine itself became passive.
This would mean regressing back to the heresy of Apollinarism. But what does St. Cyril really
mean?

Weinandy clarifies that the one physis here is to be taken in the sense of one entity not one
essence/quiddity/nature. The clue to understanding what he means is in his analogy of the
soul/body. The body/soul comparison is used to denote the oneness and not the manner in which
the oneness is achieved.

The term mia physis conveys “union,” and that it means that there is only “one reality to be
affirmed.” It is not “one nature” in the sense of one quiddity/ essence, but rather he primarily
meant to emphasize that Christ is one being or reality- one entity.39 Body and soul ontotlogically
united to form one reality or entity- one human being, so the Son of God is ontologically united
with the humanity to form one reality. ; it is a single concrete reality enfleshed before us: Mia
Physis sesarkomene, “One enfleshed nature.”

However, there is a subtler insight in Cyril’s formula that many have failed to grasp. Thomas
Weinandy affirms that in mia physis, Cyril conveyed the notion of one “subject or person and the
manner of the one subject’s existence”40 It already hints to the realty of the one person of the
Logos. This is what is meant when St. Cyril writes, “Thus, there is only one physis of the Word,
or hypostasis if you like, and that is the Word himself.”41

Here and in other writings, physis is interchangeable with prosopon or hypostasis. For St. Cyril,
the one entity of Christ, is the one persons. Physis thus is synonymous with hypostasis: referring
39
See, Weinandy, Does God Change? The Word’s Becoming in the Incarnation, 46-58.
40
Weinandy, 38.
41
(3rd letter to Nest. Para 8)
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 12

to individual and real personal subjectivity. It is synonymous with the Logos, as a subject. “By
using the phrase Cyril is attributing the person of the Logos as the single subject of the
incarnation event.42

Here we encounter a further confusion in St. Cyril’s own use of the term physis. He uses it to
mean either: 1) “as a single entity-reality” or 2) “as prosopon/ hypostasis.” The problem with
Cyril is that he often conflates the two meanings. The whole problem could have been solved if
Cyril consistently only used prosopon or hypostasis instead of physis.

St. Cyril did not understand the Antiochene accusation that his formula was close to Appolinaris
until the Council of Ephesus in 431. Only after Ephesus was St. Cyril willing to let of of the
formula. His followers like Dioscorus, however, were not willing to let go of the term, and would
later be the Monophysites of Chalcedon.43

B. How Does Henosis Come About?

1. Hypostatic Union

In order to explain how the union of two natures result in one reality comes about, he introduces
another formulation: the hypostatic union. This became more successful and openly accepted
among ecclesiastics and more useful against Nestorius. It is actually a breakthrough in
development Christology. Hypostasis means an “individual reality” or “individual person.”

According to John McGuckin, the Hypostatic union “denotes the manner of the Christological
union: it was a hypostatic union (henosis kath hypostasin), that is one that was based and
founded on the singleness of hypostasis.”44 In other words, the hypostatic union could explain
how the henosis results in one entity, reality.

We get this formula in St. Cyril’s letter to Nestorius, “We affirm this: that the Word, according
to the person (kath hypostasin) united to himself flesh.” Weinandy proposes another translation
that emphasize Cyril’s insight: “We affirm this: that the Word personally (kath hypostasin) united
to himself flesh.”45
42
McGuckins, 208.
43
McGuckins, 210.
44
McGuckins, 212.
45
Weinendy, 41.
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 13

St. Cyril wrties kath hypostasin (“according to person” or “personally”) to designate the
distinctive and singular type of substantial union it is. What type of union is it? It is a union
according to the person (kat hypostasin). Cyril’s insight was in designating that the union of the
natures takes place within the person of the Word. The incarnation and ensuing union is
‘according to the person’ (Kath Hypostasin).46 Simply stated, the two natures find their unity in
the person. The incarnational act does not bring about a union of natures, but rather it is the act
by which the humanity is united substantially to the person of the Word.47

While mia physis is emphasizing the one entity of Christ, the hypostasei mia (“one hypostasis”)
is highlighting who the one subject is within the one entity of Christ- the one Logos/Son. 48 The
single hypostasis is the foundation for the unity of Christ’s two natures. Answering Nestorius, St.
Cyril writes, “If we reject this hypostatic union as either impossible or unfitting, the we fall into
saying that there are two sons.”49

However, despite usefulness of this formulation, it was not spared from misunderstandings.
Nestorius understood hypostasis to mean “a real and concrete event,” or “a substantive reality in
physical terms.” Likewise, the Antiochenes understood hypostasis as synonymous with
Aritotelean physis which means nature or natural properties. Thus for the Antionchene party,
Christ had two hypostasis, two natures: divine and human.

2. Communicatio idiomatum

The direct consequence of clarifying a single hypostasis which supports the two natures in Christ
is the communication idiomatum or the communication of idioms. Thomas Weinandy says that it
is the hermeneutical key for unlocking the Chrislotolgy of Cyril. Idiomata means “sayings” or
“properties.”

Because there is one hypostasis, if follows that the Logos is the sole active agent/subject of the
life of Jesus of Nazareth.50 The person is the subject of all activity and passivity, whether that life
46
Weinandy, 41.
47
Weinendy, 41.
48
Weinendy, 42.
49
(2nd letter to nestorius, para 6)
50
McGuckins, 216.
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 14

is lived out in the conditions of divinity or humanity. 51 St. Cyril writes, “Accordingly all the
sayings (idiomata) contained in the Gospels must be referred to a single person (eni prosopon),
to the one incarnate subject of the word.”52 All attributes used in Scriptures are predicated of the
person, not of the natures. This means, we can authentically predicate to the hypostasis of Jesus,
the divine and human predicates that are proper to each nature.

Physical acts are attributed to the single personal reality. This corrects Apollinaris’ errors. In
Apollinaris’ passionate concern to preserve the Transcendence of the God, he said that it is only
the mindless flesh suffers, and not the divine persons.

In the 12th anathema that St. Cyril sends Nestorius, he writes, “Whoever does not acknowledge
God’s Word as having suffered in flesh, being crucified in flesh, tasted death in flesh and been
made firstborn from the dead because as God he is Life and life-giving, shall be anathema.”53

There must be some clarifications regarding the communication idiomatum. All Human
attributes are not predicated of divine nature, nor divine attribute predicated of human nature. To
understand it this way was to confuse the nature. This is how Nestorius understood it, and the
cause of his reaction to the title Theotokos.

Because the incarnation is kath hypostasin, “according to the person.” It is the person to whom
we predicate human attributes. It is not to the compositional union of natures that we attribute
idiomata, but to the Son, who is enfleshed. To call Mary as Theotokos, does not mean that she
gave birth to God as in His divine nature, rather that the person of the Son had fleshly birth.
Equally, when the Son was dying on the cross, it is not the divine nature (which is impassible)
but it is the person of the Logos, who suffered these for our sake.

God suffers, not in his nature. The one on the cross is not “God-in-his-own” nature, but rather
“God-enfleshed-within-history.”54 The second person of the trinity experiences pain in his new
condition of existence. He suffers insofar as his body and psyche suffers. St. Cyril ensures that

51
McGuckins, 202.
52
Ad Nestorius, 3, 8
53
Ad Nestorius letter 3.
54
McGuckins, 202.
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 15

the impassibility of the Divinity is preserved by attributing the passion to the person, and not to
the Divine nature.

It is Jesus who suffers. St. Cyril corrects Apollinaris’ errors. In his passionate concern to preserve
the Transcendence of the God, said that it is only the mindless flesh suffers. It is important that
the Logos truly suffered, was truly tempted, and not only the mindless flesh.

C. Why this kind of Christology?

Cyril’s Christology emerged from his soteriological concern. Following Irenaeus and Athanasius,
Cyril believed that in order man to be save: “God became man that man might become god.” He
followed the Alexandrian notion of salvation as deification. In order to save sinful humanity, he
had to recapitulate, to take up in himself all that was human that he might deify that fallen
humanity, that includes suffering.

From the above concern, Christ must be truly God, homoousios with the Father to be able to save
us. He must also be truly united with the complete human nature, in order to deify it.

What is not united to God is not saved. “What the Logos has not assumed, he has not healed”
Gregory of Nazianzen.

This is the purpose of the Christology of Cyril. Why did it happen, how did it happen? For the
salvation of man. Incarnation is fundamentally an economy: “a working-out and carries the
pregnant soteriological connotation of the deification of the human nature, by virtue of the divine
presence within…”55

That is why none of the earlier Christology would suffice for this soteriological concern.

In Nestorius, we see that the Logos is not truly united to the full human nature. There is only an
indwelling. This is insufficient to affect recapitulation.

On the other hand, Apollinarius’ Christology is defective because it does not encompass the
entire human nature, with is both flesh and rational soul. Since what has sinned is the entire

55
mcGuckin, St. Cyril, 184.
 UNIVESITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY OF SACRED THEOLOGY 16

human person, therefore what needs to be united is the entire human person, and not only the
mindless flesh.