Council of Ephesus

GuideAn ecumenical council acts with the Roman Pontiff as the Church's supreme Magisterium. The exact note of each decree or proposition must be identified separately; disciplinary acts and historical narrative are not thereby dogma.
Contents

The Council of Ephesus was the third ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, held in 431 to defend the personal unity of Jesus Christ and confess the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos, Mother of God.

The Council of Ephesus was a council of Christian bishops convened in Ephesus (near present-day Selçuk in Turkey) in AD 431 by the Roman emperor Theodosius II. This third ecumenical council, an effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom,[10] confirmed the original Nicene Creed,[11] and condemned the teachings of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who preferred that the Virgin Mary be called Christotokos, "Christ-bearer" over Theotokos, "God-bearer"; in contrast to Cyril of Alexandria who deemed that Theotokos is enough on its own. It met from 22 June to 31 July 431 at the Church of Mary in Ephesus in Anatolia.

The Christological dispute

Nestorius and the title Theotokos

Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople in 428 and soon entered a dispute already present among preachers in the capital. Some objected to calling Mary Theotokos, God-bearer or Mother of God, and preferred Christotokos, Mother of Christ. Nestorius feared that Theotokos confused the divine and human natures or implied that the eternal Godhead began in Mary. His preaching, however, spoke of the union in ways that appeared to place the Word and the man Jesus alongside one another as subjects joined by dignity or indwelling.

The Catholic confession never means that Mary caused the divine nature or existed before God. Motherhood concerns a person: the one whom Mary conceived and bore according to the flesh is the eternal Son himself. The title Theotokos therefore functions first as a Christological safeguard. If the subject born of Mary, crucified, and risen is not truly God the Word incarnate, the unity of the Gospel's saving subject is lost.[1]

Cyril of Alexandria and Pope Celestine

Saint Cyril of Alexandria answered Nestorius by emphasizing the hypostatic union. The Word did not assume an independently existing human person; he united a complete human nature to himself, so that there is one incarnate Son and Lord. Cyril appealed to Rome. A Roman synod under Pope Celestine I in August 430 judged Nestorius's teaching and commissioned Cyril to demand a retraction within ten days, while an Alexandrian synod issued a letter with twelve anathemas.

The language of Alexandria and Antioch differed enough to create real risk of misunderstanding. Alexandrians stressed the unity of the subject; Antiochenes guarded the completeness and continuing properties of Christ's humanity. Cyril's strongest formulas could sound to his opponents as though the humanity were absorbed, while Nestorius's distinctions could sound like two sons. The council had to defend personal unity without denying the natural distinction that Chalcedon would later express.

Convocation and preparations

Theodosius II, ruling in the East, and Valentinian III, ruling in the West, summoned a council to meet at Ephesus for Pentecost 431. The site honored the Virgin Mary and lay within the ecclesiastical sphere of Bishop Memnon, a firm ally of Cyril. Nestorius arrived with supporters and imperial protection. Cyril came with the Egyptian delegation. Juvenal of Jerusalem and many bishops of Asia were present, while John of Antioch and the Syrian bishops were delayed on the road.

Pope Celestine sent the bishops Arcadius and Projectus and the priest Philip as legates. Their instructions were to cooperate with Cyril, maintain the Roman judgment, and avoid becoming ordinary disputants in a case already decided at Rome. They arrived only after the first session. The delay of both Antiochenes and Roman legates made the timing of the opening one of the enduring procedural controversies.

Candidian, the imperial count charged with public order, urged the bishops to wait. Sixty-eight bishops likewise protested an immediate opening. Cyril and the majority judged that the appointed date had passed and that further delay would reward obstruction. This choice can be historically debated without making the council's Christological judgment a product of procedural perfection. Ecumenical councils receive divine assistance in their definitive teaching, not a guarantee that every tactical decision will be beyond criticism.

The first session

The council opened in the Church of Mary on 22 June. Nestorius refused three summonses, maintaining that the assembly was incomplete and irregular. The bishops read the Nicene Creed, Cyril's second letter to Nestorius, Nestorius's reply, patristic testimonies, and other evidence. Cyril's letter was judged consonant with Nicaea; Nestorius's reply was judged contrary to it. The bishops deposed Nestorius for impiety and disobedience, identifying him as separated from episcopal dignity and communion.

Popular devotion in Ephesus received the result with torchlight celebrations and acclamations of the Theotokos. Such enthusiasm did not supply the definition's authority, yet it displays the sensus fidelium responding to a confession already rooted in worship. Christians had long prayed to Christ as one Lord and honored Mary in relation to him. The council gave solemn doctrinal form to the truth that the child she bore is not someone other than the eternal Son.

Candidian rejected the session and reported against it. Four days later John of Antioch arrived with his delegation and held a counter-assembly, which condemned and purported to depose Cyril and Memnon. The rival groups exchanged accusations and appealed to the emperor. Theodosius initially treated both sets of depositions as valid and placed Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon under restraint, revealing how confused the civil enforcement of competing ecclesiastical claims had become.

The later sessions

Arrival of the papal legates

The Roman legates arrived in July. At the second session they presented Celestine's letter and asked that the acts of 22 June be read. After examination they confirmed the judgment. At the third session, Philip invoked the continuing ministry of Peter in his successors and subscribed the deposition. Catholic historiography rightly sees the legates as an important expression of papal confirmation, while the procedural record also shows Cyril exercising leadership before their arrival under Celestine's earlier commission.

The council then addressed the Antiochene counter-synod. John of Antioch repeatedly refused summonses, and the majority suspended or excommunicated him and his supporters from communion until they should account for their action. These measures deepened the rupture but did not become the last word. The later reconciliation between Cyril and John demonstrates that communion could be restored without reversing Nestorius's condemnation.

Further business

Subsequent sessions heard complaints, dealt with bishops aligned with Nestorius, and renewed condemnation of Pelagianism through the cases of Celestius and associated clergy. The council protected the rights of the Church of Cyprus against a claim by Antioch, directing that ancient customs be observed and that no bishop seize a province not previously under his authority. This decision became an important witness for autocephalous ecclesiastical order.

The final acts conventionally include eight canons. The first six impose penalties on bishops or clergy who adhere to Nestorius, Celestius, or contrary assemblies. Canon 7 forbids the composition or presentation of a different faith as a rival to Nicaea. It did not prevent the Church from explaining Nicene faith through later definitions; Ephesus itself and Chalcedon would be unintelligible if every further doctrinal formula were forbidden. Canon 8 applies the principle of non-usurpation to Cyprus and other provinces.[2]

The dogmatic teaching

One and the same Son

Ephesus teaches that the Word eternally begotten from the Father personally assumed flesh animated by a rational soul. Divinity and humanity are not confused, yet the subject of both sets of actions is one. The same Son performs miracles according to his divinity, hungers and suffers according to his humanity, and gives saving value to his human obedience and death because the humanity truly belongs to the divine person.

This unity grounds the communication of idioms: predicates belonging to either nature may be spoken of the one person with the necessary qualification. Christians may say that the Lord of glory was crucified and that God suffered in the flesh, not because the divine nature is passible, but because the person who experienced suffering in his human nature is God the Son. Separating sayings into two personal subjects would divide the Redeemer.

Mary, Mother of God

Theotokos follows from the hypostatic union. Mary gave the Son the human nature he received from her; she did not generate his eternal divinity. Because natures do not act or are born apart from persons, the one born is God the Son according to the flesh. Mother of God is therefore a true statement about the identity of her Son and, by consequence, about Mary's unique divine maternity.

The title does not make Mary a goddess, a source of the Trinity, or a fourth divine person. It glorifies God's condescension: the uncreated Word truly entered human history, received flesh from a woman, and made her free consent part of the economy of salvation. Catholic Marian doctrine remains Christ-centered when it follows this conciliar logic; devotion becomes distorted if detached from the Incarnation the title protects.

Which texts carry the definition

The council did not leave one new creed comparable in form to Nicaea's. Its dogmatic judgment is found in its reception of Nicaea, its approval of Cyril's second letter to Nestorius, its condemnation of Nestorius's contrary teaching, and the conciliar acts as received by the Church. Cyril's third letter and twelve anathemas exercised immense influence, but their precise conciliar status and interpretation generated controversy. They must be read within the complete humanity confessed in the later Formula of Reunion and at Chalcedon.[3]

Catholic doctrine therefore avoids reducing Ephesus either to a slogan about Mary or to every polemical expression used by one party. Its definitive center is the one divine person of the incarnate Word. Historical acts, personal depositions, canonical penalties, and the dogmatic content have related but distinguishable authority.

Imperial settlement and the Formula of Reunion

Imperial commissioners and court officials struggled to impose a settlement amid competing delegations and intense lobbying. Both parties used patronage, petitions, gifts, and political alliances characteristic of late-antique court life. These facts belong in an honest history; they neither prove that doctrine was purchased nor permit the behavior of every participant to be idealized. Cyril eventually returned to Alexandria, Nestorius was removed from Constantinople and retired to his former monastery before later exile, and a new bishop was chosen for the capital.[4]

Communion between Cyril and John of Antioch was restored in 433 through the Formula of Reunion. The formula confesses one Lord Jesus Christ, perfect God and perfect man, consubstantial with the Father in divinity and with humanity in humanity, united without confusion, and acknowledges Mary as Theotokos. It permits a distinction of the evangelical sayings according to the two natures while maintaining their attribution to the one person. Cyril accepted this language as compatible with his teaching.

The reunion shows that Ephesus did not canonize a refusal to distinguish Christ's natures. It also shows that peace required more than the legal defeat of Nestorius. Alexandria had to state the completeness of Christ's humanity in terms Antiochenes could recognize, and Antioch had to accept the one personal subject and Theotokos. Chalcedon later received both Cyril's letters and the reunion's two-nature language.[5]

Separation and later reception

Churches within the Persian Empire did not receive Ephesus and developed their own synodal and theological tradition using the language of Theodore of Mopsuestia and other Antiochene writers. The Church of the East must not be described as though every member simply repeated a crude doctrine of two persons. Its East Syriac terminology, political distance from the Roman Empire, and later development require precise treatment. It remains a true particular Church with apostolic succession and valid sacraments, though not in full communion with Rome.

The Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Oriental Orthodox Churches receive Ephesus as the third ecumenical council. The Assyrian Church of the East does not receive its condemnation of Nestorius. In 1994, however, Pope Saint John Paul II and Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV signed a Common Christological Declaration confessing one Lord, true God and true man, whose divinity and humanity are united in one person without confusion, change, division, or separation. They recognized the legitimacy of their respective Marian expressions.[6]

That agreement does not erase the council, canonize Nestorius, or establish full communion. It distinguishes the binding truth Ephesus defended from misunderstandings intensified by different languages and historical anathemas. Subsequent Catholic-Assyrian pastoral agreements, including limited sacramental provisions, proceed from recognition of real ecclesial and sacramental life rather than indifference to dogma.[7]

Authority and legacy

Pope Celestine's prior judgment, Cyril's commission, the papal legates' confirmation, and later universal reception belong together in the Catholic account of Ephesus. The council's dogmatic confession concerning Christ and Theotokos is infallible. Its canons carry ecclesiastical authority according to their reception, while tactical decisions, court politics, chronologies, and judgments about individual motives remain historical questions.[8]

Ephesus prepared the way for Chalcedon by making clear that the Incarnation has one personal subject. Chalcedon would protect this unity while defining that the distinction and integrity of the divine and human natures remain. Constantinople II would again insist that Chalcedon cannot be read as permission for two sons. The councils form one developing confession rather than rival Alexandrian and Antiochene constitutions.

The council permanently shaped Catholic prayer. Every use of Mother of God in the liturgy, the Hail Mary, Marian antiphons, and the celebration of her solemnities bears the Christological logic of Ephesus. The title directs faith to Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity, who for humanity and salvation was truly born of the Virgin Mary.

Background

Nestorius' doctrine, Nestorianism, which emphasized the distinction between Christ's human and divine natures and argued that Mary should preferably be called Christotokos (Christ-bearer) over Theotokos (God-bearer), had brought him into conflict with other church leaders, most notably Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. Nestorius himself had requested the Emperor to convene the council, hoping that it would prove his orthodoxy; the council in fact condemned his teachings as heresy. The council declared Mary as Theotokos (Mother of God).[12]

Nestorius' dispute with Cyril had led the latter to seek validation from Pope Celestine I, who offered his support for Cyril to request that Nestorius recant his position or face excommunication. Nestorius pleaded with the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius II to call a council in which all grievances could be aired, hoping that he would be vindicated and Cyril condemned.

Approximately 250 bishops were present. The proceedings were conducted in a heated atmosphere of confrontation and recriminations and created severe tensions between Cyril and Theodosius II. Nestorius was decisively outplayed by Cyril and removed from his see, and his teachings were officially anathematized. This precipitated the Nestorian Schism, by which churches supportive of Nestorius, especially in the Persian Empire of the Sassanids, were severed from the rest of Christendom and became known as Nestorian Christianity, or the Church of the East, whose present-day representatives are the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, the Chaldean Syrian Church, and the Chaldean Catholic Church (which restored communion with Rome).

History

Political context

John McGuckin cites the "innate rivalry" between Alexandria and Constantinople as an important factor in the controversy between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius.[13] However, he emphasizes that, as much as political competition contributed to an "overall climate of dissent", the controversy cannot be reduced merely to the level of "personality clashes" or "political antagonisms". According to McGuckin, Cyril viewed the "elevated intellectual argument about Christology" as ultimately one and the same as the "validity and security of the simple Christian life".[14]

Even within Constantinople, some supported the Roman-Alexandrian, and others supported the Nestorian factions. For example, Pulcheria supported the Roman-Alexandrian popes while the emperor and his wife supported Nestorius.[15]

Theological context

Contention over Nestorius' teachings, which he developed during his studies at the School of Antioch, largely revolved around his rejection of the long-used title Theotokos ("Carrier of God") for the Virgin Mary. Shortly after his arrival in Constantinople, Nestorius became involved in the disputes of two theological factions, which differed in their Christology.

McGuckin ascribes Nestorius' importance to his being the representative of the Antiochene (an adjectival form of the word 'Antioch') tradition and characterizes him as a "consistent, if none too clear, exponent of the longstanding Antiochene dogmatic tradition". Nestorius was greatly surprised that what he had always taught in Antioch without any controversy whatsoever should prove to be so objectionable to the Christians of Constantinople. Nestorius emphasized the dual natures of Christ, trying to find a middle ground between those who emphasized the fact that in Christ God had been born as a man, and who insisted on calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος, "God-bearer"), and those that rejected that title because God as an eternal being could not have been born. Nestorius suggested the title Christotokos (Χριστοτόκος, "Christ-bearer"), but this proposal did not gain acceptance on either side.

Nestorius tried to answer a question: "How can Jesus Christ be God and man at the same time?" He taught that Mary, the mother of Jesus gave birth to the incarnate Christ, not the divine Logos, which referred to the Logos in its divine nature, according to Antiochene usage[16], who existed before Mary and indeed before time itself. Consequently, Nestorius argued that the Virgin Mary should be called Christotokos, Greek for "Carrier of Christ", and not only Theotokos, Greek for "Carrier of God".

According to McGuckin, several mid-twentieth-century accounts have tended to "romanticise" Nestorius; in opposition to this view, he asserts that Nestorius was no less dogmatic and uncompromising than Cyril, and that he was clearly just as prepared to use his political and canonical powers as Cyril or any of the other hierarchs of the period.[17]

Nestorius's opponents charged him with detaching Christ's divinity and humanity into two persons existing in one body, thereby denying the reality of the Incarnation. Eusebius, a layman who later became the bishop of the neighbouring Dorylaeum, was the first to accuse Nestorius of heresy, but his most forceful opponent was Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril argued that Nestorius's two-natures formula necessarily leads to two Sons.[18]

Cyril appealed to Pope Celestine I of Rome, charging Nestorius with heresy. The Pope agreed and gave Cyril his authority to serve a notice to Nestorius to recant his views within ten days or else be excommunicated. Before acting on the Pope's commission, Cyril convened a synod of Egyptian bishops, which condemned Nestorius as well. Cyril then sent four suffragan bishops to deliver both the Pope's commission as well as the synodal letter of the Egyptian bishops. Cyril sent a letter to Nestorius known as the "Third Epistle of Saint Cyril to Nestorius". This epistle drew heavily on the established Patristic Constitutions and contained the most famous article of Alexandrian Orthodoxy: "The Twelve Anathemas of Saint Cyril". In these anathemas, Cyril excommunicated anyone who followed the teachings of Nestorius. For example, "Anyone who dares to deny the Holy Virgin the title Theotokos is Anathema!" Nestorius, however, still would not repent. McGuckin points out that other representatives of the Antiochene tradition such as John of Antioch, Theodoret and Andrew of Samosata were able to recognize "the point of the argument for Christ's integrity" and concede the "ill-advised nature of Nestorius' immoveability".[19] Concerned at the potential for a negative result at a council, they urged Nestorius to yield and accept the use of the title Theotokos when referring to the Virgin Mary.[20]

For example, John of Antioch wrote to Nestorius urging him to submit to the Pope's judgment and cease stirring up controversy over a word that he disliked (Theotokos) but which could be interpreted as having an orthodox meaning especially in light of the fact that many saints and doctors of the church had sanctioned the word by using it themselves. John wrote to Nestorius, "Don't lose your head. Ten days! It will not take you twenty-four hours to give the needed answer.... Ask advice of men you can trust. Ask them to tell you the facts, not just what they think will please you.... You have the whole of the East against you, as well as Egypt." Despite this advice from his colleagues, Nestorius persisted in maintaining the rightness of his position.

Convocation

On 19 November, Nestorius, anticipating the ultimatum decision which was about to be delivered, convinced Emperor Theodosius II to summon a general council through which Nestorius hoped to convict Cyril of heresy and thereby vindicate his own teachings. Theodosius issued a Sacra calling for the metropolitan bishops to assemble in the city of Ephesus, which was a special seat for the veneration of Mary, where the theotokos formula was popular. Each bishop was to bring only his more eminent suffragans. The date set by the Emperor for the opening of the council was Pentecost (7 June) 431.[21]

McGuckin notes that the vagueness of the Sacra resulted in wide variations of interpretation by different bishops. In particular, the vastness of John of Antioch's ecclesiastical territory required a lengthy period to notify and gather his delegates. Because the overland trip from Antioch to Ephesus was long and arduous, John composed his delegation of his metropolitan bishops, who were restricted to bring no more than two suffragans each. By doing so, he minimized the number who would have to travel to Ephesus. Neither of the emperors attended the council. Theodosius appointed Count Candidian as the head of the imperial palace guard to represent him, to supervise the proceedings of the Council, and to keep good order in the city of Ephesus. Despite Nestorius' agenda of prosecuting Cyril, Theodosius intended for the council to focus strictly on the christological controversy. He thus gave Candidian strict directions to remain neutral and not to interfere in the theological proceedings. It is generally assumed that Candidian initially maintained his neutrality as instructed by the emperor and only gradually became more biased towards Nestorius. McGuckin, however, suggests that Candidian may have favored Nestorius from the start.[22][23]

Assembly

Celestine sent Arcadius and Projectus to represent himself and his Roman council; in addition, he sent the Roman priest, Philip, as his personal representative. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, was president of the council. Celestine had directed the papal legates not to take part in the discussions but to give judgment on them.[24]

Bishops arrived in Ephesus over a period of several weeks. While waiting for the other bishops to arrive, they engaged in informal discussions characterized as tending to "exasperate rather than heal their differences"[25] The metropolitan of Ephesus, Memnon, was already present with his 52 bishops. Nestorius and his 16 bishops were the first to arrive shortly after Easter. As archbishop of the imperial city of Constantinople, he travelled with a detachment of troops who were under the command of Count Candidian. McGuckin notes that the troops were not there to serve as Nestorius' bodyguard but to support Candidian in his role as the emperor's representative. However, McGuckin theorizes that Candidian's progressive abandonment of neutrality in favor of Nestorius may have created the perception that Candidian's troops were, in fact, there to support Nestorius.[26] Candidian ordered all monks and lay strangers to leave the city; he further instructed the bishops not to leave on any pretext until the council was concluded.[25] Several sources comment that the purpose of this injunction was to prevent bishops from leaving the council to appeal to the emperor directly.[27]

According to McGuckin, Memnon, as bishop of Ephesus, commanded the "fervent and unquestioned loyalty" of the local populace and thus could count on the support of local factions to counterbalance the military might of Candidian's troops.[28] In view of the verdict of Rome against Nestorius, Memnon refused to have communion with Nestorius, closing the churches of Ephesus to him.[29]

Cyril brought with him 50 bishops, arriving only a few days before Pentecost.[30] There were very few bishops representing the West, as the papal representatives would not arrive until July.[31] The Palestinian delegation of 16 bishops and Metropolitan Flavian of Philippi arrived five days after the date that had been set for opening the council and aligned themselves with Cyril.[31]

At this point, Cyril announced his intention to open the council; however, Candidian enjoined him from doing so on the grounds that the Roman and Antiochean delegations had not arrived yet.[20] Cyril initially acceded to Candidian's injunction knowing that he could not legally convene a council without the official reading of the Emperor's Sacra.[32]

A number of bishops, who were undecided between Nestorius and Cyril, did not want to give Cyril, as one party in the dispute, the right to chair the meeting and decide the agenda;[33] however, they began to take Cyril's side for various reasons.[34]

Various circumstances, including a detour necessitated by flooding as well as sickness and death of some of the delegates, seriously delayed John of Antioch and his bishops.[35] It was rumored that John might be delaying his arrival in order to avoid participating in a council which was likely to condemn Nestorius as a heretic.[24]

First session – 22 June 431

Two weeks after the date set for the council, John and the bulk of his Syrian group (42 members) had not yet appeared. At this point, Cyril formally opened the council on Monday, 22 June by enthroning the Gospels in the center of the church as a symbol of Christ's presence among the assembled bishops.[36]

Despite three separate summons, Nestorius refused to acknowledge Cyril's authority to stand in judgment of him and considered the opening of the council before the arrival of the Antiochene contingent as a "flagrant injustice".[20][24] The 68 bishops who opposed opening the council entered the church in protest, arriving with Count Candidian who declared that the assembly was illegal and must disperse.[37] He urged Cyril to wait four more days for the Syrian delegation to arrive.[38] However, since even the bishops opposed to opening the council were now present, Cyril maneuvered Candidian by means of a ruse to read out the text of the Emperor's decree of convocation, which the assembly then acclaimed as recognition of its own legality.[39]

Arrival of the Antiochene delegation

When John of Antioch and his Syrian bishops finally reached Ephesus five days after the council, they met with Candidian who informed them that Cyril had begun a council without them and had ratified Celestine's conviction of Nestorius as a heretic. Angered at having undertaken such a long and arduous journey only to have been pre-empted by actions taken by Cyril's council, John and the Syrian bishops held their own Council with Candidian presiding.[40][41] This council condemned Cyril for espousing the Arian, Apollinarian and Eunomian heresies and condemned Memnon for inciting violence. The bishops at this council deposed both Cyril and Memnon.[20] Initially, the emperor concurred with the actions of John's council but eventually withdrew his concurrence.

Second Session – 10 July 431

The second session was held in Memnon's episcopal residence. Philip, as papal legate, opened the proceedings by commenting that the present question regarding Nestorius had already been decided by Pope Celestine as evidenced by his letter, which had been read to the assembled bishops in the first session. He indicated that he had a second letter from Celestine, which was read to the bishops now in attendance. The letter contained a general exhortation to the council, and concluded by saying that the legates had instructions to carry out what the pope had decided on the question and expressed Celestine's confidence that the council would agree. The bishops indicated their approval by acclaiming Celestine and Cyril. Projectus indicated that the papal letter enjoined the council to put into effect the sentence pronounced by Celestine. Firmus, the Exarch of Caesarea in Cappadocia, responded that the pope's sentence had already been carried out in the first session. The session closed with the reading of the pope's letter to the emperor.[24]

Third Session – 11 July 431

Having read the Acts of the first session, the papal legates indicated that all that was required was that the council's condemnation of Nestorius be formally read in their presence. When this had been done, the three legates each confirmed the council's actions, signing the Acts of all three sessions. The council sent a letter to Theodosius indicating that the condemnation of Nestorius had been agreed upon not only by the bishops of the East meeting in Ephesus but also of the bishops of the West who had convened at a synod in Rome convened by Celestine. The bishops asked Theodosius to allow them to go home since so many of them suffered from their presence at Ephesus.[24]

Fourth Session – 16 July 431

At the fourth session, Cyril and Memnon presented a formal protest against John of Antioch for convening a separate conciliabulum. The council issued a summons for him to appear before them, but he would not even receive the envoys who were sent to serve him the summons.[24]

Fifth Session – 17 July 431

The next day, the fifth session was held in the same church. John had set up a placard in the city accusing the synod of the Apollinarian heresy. He was again cited, and this was counted as the third canonical summons. He paid no attention. In consequence, the council suspended and excommunicated him, together with thirty-four bishops of his party, but refrained from deposing them. Some of John's party had already deserted him, and he had gained only a few. In the letters to the emperor and the pope, which were then dispatched, the synod described itself as now consisting of 210 bishops. The long letter to Celestine gave a full account of the council and mentioned that the pope's decrees against the Pelagians had been read and confirmed.[24]

Sixth Session – 22 July 431

At this session, the bishops approved Canon 7, which condemned any departure from the creed established by the First Council of Nicaea, in particular an exposition by the priest Charisius. According to a report from Cyril to Celestine, Juvenal of Jerusalem tried and failed to create for himself a patriarchate from the territory of the Antiochene patriarchate in which his see lay. He ultimately succeeded in this goal twenty years later at the Council of Chalcedon.[24]

Seventh Session – 31 August 431

At this session, the council approved the claim of the bishops of Cyprus that their see had been anciently and rightly exempt from the jurisdiction of Antioch. The council also passed five canons condemning Nestorius and Caelestius and their followers as heretics and a sixth one decreeing deposition from clerical office or excommunication for those who did not accept the Council's decrees.[42]

Canons and declarations

Eight canons were passed:

  • Canon 1–5 condemned Nestorius and Caelestius and their followers as heretics
  • Canon 6 decreed deposition from clerical office or excommunication for those who did not accept the Council's decrees
  • Canon 7 condemned any departure from the creed established by the First Council of Nicaea (325), in particular an exposition by the priest Charisius.
  • Canon 8 condemned interference by the Bishop of Antioch in affairs of the Church in Cyprus and decreed generally, that no bishop was to "assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors […] lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed".[11]

The Council denounced Nestorius' teaching as erroneous and decreed that Jesus was one person (hypostasis), and not two separate persons, yet possessing both a human and divine nature. The Virgin Mary was to be called Theotokos, a Greek word that means "God-bearer" (the one who gave birth to God).

The Council declared it "unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa".[11] It quoted the Nicene Creed as adopted by the First Council of Nicaea in 325, not as added to and modified by the First Council of Constantinople in 381.[43][44][45][46]

Although some scholars, such as Norman Cohn and Peter Toon, have suggested that the Council of Ephesus rejected premillennialism, this is a misconception, and there is no evidence of the Council making any such declaration.[47][48]

Confirmation of the Council's acts

The bishops at Cyril's council outnumbered those at John of Antioch's council by nearly four to one. In addition, they had the agreement of the papal legates and the support of the population of Ephesus who supported their bishop, Memnon.

However, Count Candidian and his troops supported Nestorius as did Count Irenaeus. The emperor had always been a firm supporter of Nestorius but had been somewhat shaken by the reports of the council. Cyril's group was unable to communicate with the emperor because of interference from supporters of Nestorius both at Constantinople and at Ephesus. Ultimately, a messenger disguised as a beggar was able to carry a letter to Constantinople by hiding it in a hollow cane.

Although Emperor Theodosius had long been a staunch supporter of Nestorius, his loyalty seems to have been shaken by the reports from Cyril's council and caused him to arrive at the extraordinary decision to ratify the depositions decreed by both councils. Thus, he declared that Cyril, Memnon, and John were all deposed. Memnon and Cyril were kept in close confinement. But in spite of all the efforts of the Antiochene party, the representatives of the envoys whom the council was eventually allowed to send, with the legate Philip, to the Court, persuaded the emperor to accept Cyril's council as the true one.

Seeing the writing on the wall and anticipating his fate, Nestorius requested permission to retire to his former monastery. The synod was dissolved in the beginning of October, and Cyril arrived back to Alexandria amid much joy on 30 October 431. Pope Celestine had died on 27 July 431, but his successor, Sixtus III, gave papal confirmation to the council's actions.

Aftermath

The events created a major schism between the followers of the different versions of the council, which was only mended by difficult negotiations. The factions that supported John of Antioch acquiesced in the condemnation of Nestorius and, after additional clarifications, accepted the decisions of Cyril's council. However, the rift would open again during the debates leading up to the Council of Chalcedon.[49]

Persia had long been home to a Christian community that had been persecuted by the Zoroastrian majority, which had accused it of Roman leanings. In 424, the Persian Church declared itself independent of the Byzantine and all other churches, in order to ward off allegations of foreign allegiance. Following the Nestorian Schism, the Persian Church increasingly aligned itself with the Nestorians, a measure encouraged by the Zoroastrian ruling class. The Persian Church became increasingly Nestorian in doctrine over the next decades, furthering the divide between Christianity in Persia and in the Roman Empire. In 486 the Metropolitan of Nisibis, Barsauma, publicly accepted Nestorius' mentor, Theodore of Mopsuestia, as a spiritual authority. In 489 when the School of Edessa in Mesopotamia was closed by Byzantine Emperor Zeno for its Nestorian teachings, the school relocated to its original home of Nisibis, becoming again the School of Nisibis, leading to a wave of Nestorian immigration into Persia. The Persian patriarch Mar Babai I (497–502) reiterated and expanded upon the church's esteem for Theodore, solidifying the church's adoption of Nestorianism.[50]

Conciliation

In 1994, the Common Christological Declaration Between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East marked the resolution of a dispute between those two churches that had existed since the Council of Ephesus. They expressed their common understanding of doctrine concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ, and recognized the legitimacy and rightness of their respective descriptions of Mary as, on the Catholic side, "the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour", and, on the Assyrian side, as "the Mother of God" and also as "the Mother of Christ".[51]

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

Ephesus, Council of, the third ecumenical council, 431. The idea of this great council seems to have been due to Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople. St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, had accused him to Pope St. Celestine of heresy, and the pope had replied on August 11, 430, by charging St. Cyril to assume his authority and give notice in his name to Nestorius that, unless he recanted within ten days of receiving this ultimatum, he was to consider himself excommunicated and deposed. The summons was served on Nestorius on a Sunday, November 30, or December 7, by four bishops sent by Cyril. But Nestorius was evidently well informed of what he was to expect. He regarded himself as having been calumniated to the pope, and he did not choose to be given over into the hands of Cyril. The latter was, in his opinion, not merely a personal enemy, but a dangerous theologian, who was reviving to some extent the errors of Apollinarius. Nestorius had influence over the Emperor of the East, Theodosius II, whom he induced to summon a general council to judge of the difference between the Patriarch of Alexandria and himself, and he worked so well that the letters of convocation were issued by the emperor to all metropolitans on November 19, some days before the messengers of Cyril arrived. The emperor was able to take this course without seeming to favor Nestorius too much, because the monks of the capital, whom Nestorius had excommunicated for their opposition to his heretical teaching, had also appealed to him to call together a council. Nestorius, therefore, paid no attention to the pope's ultimatum, and refused to be guided by the advice to submit which his friend John, the Patriarch of Antioch, volunteered.[9]

Proceedings

The pope was pleased that the whole East should be united to condemn the new heresy. He sent two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, to represent himself and his Roman council, and the Roman priest, Philip, as his personal representative. Philip, therefore, takes the first place, though, not being a bishop, he could not preside. It was probably a matter of course that the Patriarch of Alexandria should be president. The legates were directed not to take part in the discussions, but to give judgment on them. It seems that Chalcedon, twenty years later, set the precedent that the papal legates should always be technically presidents at an ecumenical council, and this was henceforth looked upon as a matter of course, and Greek historians assumed that it must have been the case at Nicaea.

The emperor was anxious for the presence of the most venerated prelate of the whole world, Augustine, and sent a special messenger to that great man with a letter in honorable terms. But the saint had died during the siege of Hippo in the preceding August, though the troubles of Africa had prevented news from reaching Constantinople. Theodosius wrote an angry letter to Cyril, and a temperate one to the council. The tone of the latter epistle and of the instructions given to the imperial commissioner, Count Candidian, to be absolutely impartial, are ascribed by the Coptic Acts to the influence exercised on the emperor by the Abbot Victor, who had been sent to Constantinople by Cyril to act as his agent at the Court on account of the veneration and friendship which Theodosius was known to feel for the holy man. Nestorius, with sixteen bishops, and Cyril, with fifty, arrived before Pentecost at Ephesus. The Coptic tells us that the two parties arrived on the same day, and that in the evening Nestorius proposed that all should join in the Vesper service together. The other bishops refused. Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, was afraid of violence, and sent his clergy only to the church. The mention of a Flavian, who seems to be the Bishop of Philippi, casts some doubt. on this story, for that bishop did not arrive till later. Memnon of Ephesus had forty suffragans present, not counting twelve from Pamphylia (whom John of Antioch calls heretics). Juvenal of Jerusalem, with the neighboring bishops whom he looked upon as his suffragans, and Flavian of Philippi, with a contingent from the countries which looked to Thessalonica as their metropolis, arrived soon after Pentecost. The Patriarch of Antioch, John, an old friend of Nestorius, wrote to explain that his suffragans had not been able to start till after the Octave of Easter. (The Coptic Acts say that there was a famine at Antioch.) The journey of thirty days had been lengthened by the death of some horses; he would accomplish the last five or six stages at leisure. But he did not arrive, and it was said that he was loitering because he did not wish to join in condemning Nestorius. Meanwhile the heat was great. Many bishops were ill. Two or three died. Two of John's metropolitans, those of Apamea and Hierapolis, arrived and declared that John did not wish the opening of the council to be deferred on account of his delay. However, these two bishops and Theodoret of Cyrus, with sixty-five others, wrote a memorial addressed to St. Cyril and Juvenal of Jerusalem, begging that the arrival of John should be awaited. Count Candidian arrived, with the imperial decree, and he took the same view. But Cyril and the majority determined to open the council on June 22, sixteen days having passed since John had announced his arrival in five or six. It was clear to the majority that this delay was intentional, and they were probably right. Yet it is regrettable that all possible allowance was not made, especially as no news had yet come from Rome.

For Cyril had written to the pope with regard to an important question of procedure. Nestorius had not recanted within the ten days fixed by the pope, and he was consequently treated as excommunicate by the majority of the bishops. Was he to be allowed a fresh trial, although the pope had already condemned him? Or, on the other hand, was he to be merely given the opportunity of explaining or excusing his contumacy? One might have presumed that Pope Celestine, in approving of the council, intended that Nestorius should have a full trial, and in fact this was declared in his letter which was still on the way. But as no reply had come to Cyril, that saint considered that he had no right to treat the pope's sentence as a matter for further discussion, and no doubt he had not much wish to do so. The council assembled on June 22, and St. Cyril assumed the presidency both as Patriarch of Alexandria and "as filling the place of the most holy and blessed Archbishop of the Roman Church, Celestine", in order to carry out his original commission, which he considered, in the absence of any reply from Rome, to be still in force. In the morning one hundred and sixty bishops were present, and by evening one hundred and ninety-eight had assembled. The session began by a justification of the decision to delay no longer. Nestorius had been on the previous day invited to attend. He had replied that he would come if he chose. To a second summons, which was now dispatched, he sent a message from his house, which was surrounded with armed men, that he would appear when all the bishops had come together. Indeed only some twenty of the sixty-eight who had demanded a delay had rallied to Cyril, and Nestorius's own suffragans had also stayed away. To a third summons he gave no answer. This attitude corresponds with his original attitude to the ultimatum sent by Cyril. He would not acknowledge Cyril as a judge, and he looked upon the opening of the council before the arrival of his friends from Antioch as a flagrant injustice.

The session proceeded. The Nicene Creed was read, and then the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius, on which the bishops at Cyril's desire, severally gave their judgement that it was in accordance with the Nicene faith, one hundred and twenty-six speaking in turn. Next the reply of Nestorius was read. All then cried Anathema to Nestorius. Then Pope Celestine's letter to St. Cyril was read, and after it the third letter of Cyril to Nestorius, with the anathematisms which the heretic was to accept. The bishops who had served this ultimatum on Nestorius deposed that they had given him the letter. He had promised his answer on the morrow, but had not given any, and did not even admit them. Then two friends of Nestorius, Theodotus of Ancyra and Acacius of Mitylene, were invited by Cyril to give an account of their conversations at Ephesus with Nestorius. Acacius said that Nestorius had repeatedly declared dimeniaion e trimeniaion me dein legesthai Theon. Nestorius's own account of this conversation in his "Apology" (Bethune-Baker, p. 71) shows that this phrase is to be translated thus: "We must not say that God is two or three months old." This is not so shocking as the meaning which has usually been ascribed to the words in modern as well as ancient times (e.g. by Socrates, VII, xxxiv): "A baby of two or three months old ought not to be called God." The former sense agrees with the accusation of Acacius that Nestorius declared "one must either deny the Godhead [theotes] of the Only-begotten to have become man, or else admit the same of the Father and of the Holy Ghost." (Nestorius means that the Divine Nature is numerically one—and if Nestorius really said theotes, and not hupostasis, he was right, and Acacius was wrong.) Acacius further accused him of uttering the heresy that the Son who died is to be distinguished from the Word of God. A series of extracts from the holy Fathers was then read, Peter I and Athanasius of Alexandria, Julius and Felix of Rome (but these papal letters were Apollinarian forgeries), Theophilus, Cyril's uncle, Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus, Amphilochius. After these, contrasting passages from the writings of Nestorius were read. These were of course pièces justificatives brought forward by Cyril, and necessary to inform the council as to the question at issue. Hefele has wrongly understood that the bishops were examining the doctrine of Nestorius afresh, without accepting the condemnation by the pope as necessarily correct. A fine letter from Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage, and primate of a greater number of bishops than any of the Eastern patriarchs, was next produced. He writes in the midst of the devastation of Africa by the Vandals, and naturally could neither hold any synod nor send any bishops. No discussion followed (and Hefele is wrong in suggesting an omission in the Acts, which are already of extraordinary length for a single day), but the bishops accepted with acclamation the words of Capreolus against novelty and in praise of ancient faith, and all proceeded to sign the sentence against Nestorius. As the excommunication by St. Celestine was still in force, and as Nestorius had contumaciously refused to answer the threefold summons enjoined by the canons, the sentence was worded as follows:

The holy synod said: "Since in addition to the rest the most impious Nestorius has neither been willing to obey our citation, nor to receive the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and, having apprehended from his letters and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in, this metropolis which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily impelled thereto both by the canons [for his contumacy] and by the letter [to Cyril] of our most holy father and colleague Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears have arrived at the following grievous sentence against him: Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, has defined by this holy synod that the same Nestorius is excluded from all episcopal dignity and from every assembly of bishops."

This sentence received 198 signatures, and some more were afterwards added. A brief notification addressed to "the new Judas" was sent to Nestorius. The Coptic Acts tell us that, as he would not receive it, it was affixed to his door. The whole business had been concluded in a single long session, and it was evening when the result was known. The people of Ephesus, full of rejoicing, escorted the fathers to their houses with torches and incense. Count Candidian, on the other hand, had the notices of the deposition torn down, and silenced the cries in the streets. The council wrote at once to the emperor and to the people and clergy of Constantinople, though the Acts had not yet been written out in full. In a letter to the Egyptian bishops in the same city and to the Abbot Dalmatius (the Coptic substitutes Abbot Victor), Cyril asks for their vigilance, as Candidian was sending false reports. Sermons were preached by Cyril and his friends, and the people of Ephesus were much excited. Even before this, Nestorius, writing, with ten bishops, to the emperor to complain that the council was to begin without waiting for the Antiochenes and the Westerns, had spoken of the violence of the people, egged on by their bishop Memnon who (so the heretic said) had shut the churches to him and threatened him with death.

Five days after the first session John of Antioch arrived. The party of Cyril sent a deputation to meet him honorably, but John was surrounded by soldiers, and complained that the bishops were creating a disturbance. Before he would speak to them, he held an assembly which he designated "the holy synod". Candidian deposed that he had disapproved of the assembling of the bishops before John's arrival; he had attended the session and read the emperor's letter (of this not a word in the Acts, so Candidian was apparently lying). John accused Memnon of violence, and Cyril of Arian, Apollinarian, and Eunomian heresy. These two were deposed by forty-three bishops present; the members of the council were to be forgiven, provided they would condemn the twelve anathematisms of Cyril. This was absurd, for most of these could not be understood in anything but a Catholic sense. But John, who was not a bad man, was in a bad temper. It is noticeable that not a word was said in favor of Nestorius at this assembly. The party of Cyril was now complaining of Count Candidian and his soldiers, as the other side did of Memnon and the populace. Both parties sent their report to Rome. The emperor was much distressed at the division, and wrote that a collective session must be held, and the matter begun afresh. The official named Palladius who brought this epistle took back with him many letters from both sides. Cyril proposed that the emperor should send for him and five bishops, to render an exact account.

At last on July 10 the papal envoys arrived. The second session assembled in the episcopal residence. The legate Philip opened the proceedings by saying that the former letter of St. Celestine had been already read, in which he had decided the present question; the pope had now sent another letter. This was read: It contained a general exhortation to the council, and concluded by saying that the legates had instructions to carry out what the pope had formerly decided; doubtless the council would agree. The Fathers then cried: "This is a just judgment. To Celestine the new Paul! To the new Paul Cyril! To Celestine, the guardian of the Faith! To Celestine agreeing with the Synod! The Synod gives thanks to Cyril. One Celestine, one Cyril! "The legate Projectus then says that the letter enjoins on the council, though they need no instruction, to carry into effect the sentence which the pope had pronounced. Hefele wrongly interprets this: "That is, that all the bishops should accede to the Papal sentence" (vol. III, 136). Firmus, the Exarch of Caesarea in Cappadocia, replies that the pope, by the letter which he sent to the Bishops of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Thessalonica, Constantinople, and Antioch, had long since given his sentence and decision; and the synod—the ten days having passed, and also a much longer period—having waited beyond the day of opening fixed by the emperor, had followed the course indicated by the pope, and, as Nestorius did not appear, had executed upon him the papal sentence, having inflicted the canonical and Apostolic judgment upon him. This was a reply to Projectus, declaring that what the pope required had been done, and it is an accurate account of the work of the first session and of the sentence; canonical refers to the words of the sentence, "necessarily obliged by the canons", and Apostolic to the words "and by the letter of the bishop of Rome". The legate Arcadius expressed his regret for the late arrival of his party, on account of storms, and asked to see the decrees of the council. Philip, the pope's personal legate, then thanked the bishops for adhering by their acclamations as holy members to their holy head—"For your blessedness is not unaware that the Apostle Peter is the head of the Faith and of the Apostles." The Metropolitan of Ancyra declared that God had shown the justice of the synod's sentence by the coming of St. Celestine's letter and of the legates. The session closed with the reading of the pope's letter to the emperor.

On the following day, July 11, the third session took place. The legates had read the Acts of the first session and now demanded only that the condemnation of Nestorius should be formally read in their presence. When this had been done, the three legates severally pronounced a confirmation in the pope's name. The exordium of the speech of Philip is celebrated: "It is doubtful to none, nay it has been known to all ages, that holy and blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the column of the Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the Kingdom, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who until this day and for ever lives and judges in his successors. His successor in order and his representative, our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine..." It was with words such as these before their eyes that Greek Fathers and councils spoke of the Council of Ephesus as celebrated "by Celestine and Cyril". A translation of these speeches was read, for Cyril then rose and said that the synod had understood them clearly; and now the Acts of all three sessions must be presented to the legates for their signature. Arcadius replied that they were of course willing. The synod ordered that the Acts should be set before them, and they signed them. A letter was sent to the emperor, telling him how St. Celestine had held a synod at Rome and had sent his legates, representing himself and the whole of the West. The whole world has therefore agreed; Theodosius should allow the bishops to go home, for many suffered from being at Ephesus, and their dioceses also must suffer. Only a few friends of Nestorius held out against the world's judgment. A new bishop must be appointed for Constantinople.

On July 16 a more solemn session was held, like the first, in the cathedral of the Theotokos. Cyril and Memnon presented a written protest against the conciliabulum of John of Antioch. He was cited to appear, but would not even admit the envoys. Next day the fifth session was held in the same church. John had set up a placard in the city accusing the synod of the Apollinarian heresy. He is again cited, and this is counted as the third canonical summons. He would pay no attention. In consequence the council suspended and excommunicated him, together with thirty-four bishops of his party, but refrained from deposing them. Some of John's party had already deserted him, and he had gained only a few. In the letters to the emperor and the pope which were then dispatched, the synod described itself as now consisting of two hundred and ten bishops. The long letter to Celestine gives a full account of the council, and mentions that the pope's decrees against the Pelagians had been read and confirmed. At the end of the sixth session, which dealt only with the case of two Nestorianizing priests, was made the famous declaration that no one must produce or compose any other creed than (para, proeter, "beyond"—"contrary to"?) the Nicene, and that anyone who should propose any such to pagans, Jews, or heretics, who wished to be converted, should be deposed if a bishop or cleric, or anathematized if a layman. This decision became later a fruitful source of objections to the decrees of later synods and to the addition of the filioque to the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed; but that creed itself would be abolished by this decree if it is taken too literally. We know of several matters connected with Pamphylia and Thrace which were treated by the council, which are not found in the Acts. St. Leo tells us that Cyril reported to the pope the intrigues by which Juvenal of Jerusalem tried at Ephesus to carve himself a patriarchate out of that of Antioch, in which his see lay. He was to succeed in this twenty years later, at Chalcedon. In the seventh and last session on July 31 (it seems) the bishops of Cyprus persuaded the council to approve their claim of having been anciently and rightly exempt from the jurisdiction of Antioch. Six canons were also passed against the adherents and supporters of Nestorius.

The history of the intrigues by which both parties tried to get the emperor on their side need not be detailed here. The orthodox were triumphant at Ephesus by their numbers and by the agreement of the papal legates. The population of Ephesus was on their side. The people of Constantinople rejoiced at the deposition of their heretical bishop. But Count Candidian and his troops were on the side of Nestorius, whose friend, Count Irenaeus, was also at Ephesus, working for him. The emperor had always championed Nestorius, but had been somewhat shaken by the reports of the council. Communication with Constantinople was impeded both by the friends of Nestorius there and by Candidian at Ephesus. A letter was taken to Constantinople at last in a hollow cane, by a messenger disguised as a beggar, in which the miserable condition of the bishops at Ephesus was described, scarce a day passing without a funeral, and entreaty was made that they might be allowed to send representatives to the emperor. The holy abbot, St. Dalmatius, to whom the letter was addressed, as well as to the emperor, clergy, and people of Constantinople, left his monastery in obedience to a Divine voice and, at the head of the many thousand monks of the city, all chanting and carrying tapers, made his way through enthusiastic crowds to the palace. They passed back right through the city, after the abbot Dalmatius had interviewed the emperor, and the letter was read to the people in the church of St. Mocius. All shouted "Anathema to Nestorius!"

Eventually the pious and well-meaning emperor arrived at the extraordinary decision that he should ratify the depositions decreed by both councils. He therefore declared that Cyril, Memnon, and John were all deposed. Memnon and Cyril were kept in close confinement. But in spite of all the exertions of the Antiochian party, the representatives of the envoys whom the council was eventually allowed to send, with the legate Philip, to the Court, persuaded the emperor to accept the great council as the true one. Nestorius anticipated his fate by requesting permission to retire to his former monastery. The synod was dissolved about the beginning of October, and Cyril arrived amid much joy at Alexandria on October 30. St. Celestine was now dead, but his successor, St. Sixtus III, confirmed the council.

John Chapman.

References

  1. 1.Saint John Paul II, Mulieris dignitatem, 4The essential Christological meaning of Mary's divine motherhood and the Ephesian definition
  2. 2.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 464–483Catholic synthesis of the Christological definitions of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople II
  3. 3.Decrees of the Ecumenical CouncilsThe acts, Cyril's letters, judgment against Nestorius, canons, and related conciliar documents of Ephesus; English text based on Norman Tanner's critical edition
  4. 4.Benedict XVI, General Audience on Saint Cyril of AlexandriaCyril's life, letters, Christology, papal communion, and role at Ephesus
  5. 5.Saint John Paul II, A Concilio Constantinopolitano ITheological account of Ephesus, the two natures in the one person, Theotokos, Cyril's letters, and the Formula of Reunion
  6. 6.Common Christological Declaration with the Assyrian Church of the EastCommon confession of the one person of Christ and recognition of Catholic and Assyrian Marian expressions
  7. 7.Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the EastDoctrinal and pastoral consequences of Catholic recognition of the Assyrian Church's apostolic faith, orders, and Eucharist
  8. 8.1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: Council of EphesusDetailed historical treatment of the occasion, sessions, papal legates, rival assembly, court settlement, and reunion
  9. 9.1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: Council of Ephesus
  10. 10.Richard Kieckhefer (1989). "Papacy". Dictionary of the Middle Ages. ISBN 978-0-684-18275-9.
  11. 11.[11.2][11.3]Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry, eds. (1996) [1890], A select library of Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian church, Second series, vol. VII, Grand Rapids, Michigan, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, ISBN 0-8028-8121-1 – via Internet Archive Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry, eds. (1890–1900), A select library of Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian church, Second Series, vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, New York: Christian Literature Co. – via Internet Archive Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry, eds. (1890), "Early Church Fathers: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers", The Tertullian Project, II
  12. 12.Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (2004), Mary, Mother of God
  13. 13.McGuckin, p. 12
  14. 14.McGuckin, pp. 19–21
  15. 15.Gabra, Gawdat (2009). The A to Z of the Coptic Church. Scarecrow Press. p. 97.
  16. 16.Paul B. Clayton, The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus, p. 258
  17. 17.McGuckin, p. 21
  18. 18.McEnerney, John I. (1987). "44 To Eulogius, a priest". Letters 1–50 (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 76). Catholic University of America Press. pp. 186–189. doi:10.2307/j.ctt32b26n.50. ISBN 978-0-8132-0076-7. JSTOR j.ctt32b26n.
  19. 19.McGuckin, pp. 22–23
  20. 20.[20.2][20.3][20.4]Kelly, Joseph (2009). The ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church: a history. Liturgical Press. ISBN 9780814657034.
  21. 21.McGuckin, pp. 53–54
  22. 22.McGuckin, p. 53
  23. 23."Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus". Retrieved 25 September 2011.
  24. 24.[24.2][24.3][24.4][24.5][24.6][24.7][24.8]"Council of Ephesus". Catholic Encyclopedia.
  25. 25.[25.2]Robertson, John Craigie (1854). History of the Christian Church. John Murray. p. 405. Retrieved 9 November 2015.
  26. 26.McGuckin, p. 54
  27. 27.Headlam, Arthur Cayley, ed. (1892), "The Council of Ephesus", The Church Quarterly Review, vol. 33, Spottiswoode, p. 103 – via Google books
  28. 28.McGuckin, p. 55
  29. 29.McGuckin, pp. 57–58
  30. 30.McGuckin, pp. 54–56
  31. 31.[31.2]McGuckin, p. 57
  32. 32.McGuckin, p. 78; Nonetheless, he must have been acutely aware that he could claim no legal status for his synod under imperial law until the official reading of the Emperor's Sacra had taken place.
  33. 33.McGuckin, p. 60
  34. 34.McGuckin, pp. 60–65
  35. 35.McGuckin, pp. 58–59
  36. 36.McGuckin, p. 77
  37. 37.McGuckin, pp. 77–78
  38. 38.Gibbon. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. p. 115.
  39. 39.McGuckin, p. 79; When Candidian finished reading the Sacra he surely realised the full extent of his mistake. The Bishops acclaimed long life to the Emperor in demonstrative professions of loyalty, but now with the text officially declaimed in the symbolic presence of the whole Episcopal gathering the Synod of Ephesus was in formal session, legally as well as canonically sanctioned.
  40. 40.McGuckin, p. 59
  41. 41.Bury, J. B. (1958). History of the later Roman Empire from the death of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian. Courier Dover Publications. p. 353. ISBN 978-0-486-20398-0. Retrieved 8 October 2011.
  42. 42.Price, Richard; Graumann, Thomas (2020). The Council of Ephesus of 431: Documents and Proceedings. Liverpool Press. p. 525. ISBN 978-1-78962-147-1.
  43. 43."Extracts from the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius".
  44. 44.Johannes Roldanus, The Church in the Age of Constantine (Taylor & Francis 2006 ISBN 978-0-415-40903-2), p. 140
  45. 45.John Anthony McGuckin (editor), The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Theology (Wiley 2010 ISBN 978-1-4443-9254-8), p. 166
  46. 46.Adrian Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church (Kessinger 2004 reprint ISBN 978-1-4179-1060-1), p. 383
  47. 47.Svigel, Michael J. (2003). "The Phantom Heresy: Did the Council of Ephesus (431) Condemn Chiliasm?". Trinity Journal. 24. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  48. 48.Gumerlock, Francis X. (2004). "Millennialism and the Early Church Councils: Was Chiliasm Condemned at Constantinople?" (PDF). Fides et Historia. 36: 83–95. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 May 2015. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  49. 49.Davis, Leo Donald (1990). The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Liturgical Press. ISBN 978-0-8146-5616-7.
  50. 50."Nestorian". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 28, 2010.
  51. 51.Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, Vatican Archived January 4, 2009, at the Wayback Machine