approved by the council[1], and its creed, by treating the words ὑπόστασις and persona as identical, interpreted the terms ἕνωσις καθ’ ὑπόστασιν in the sense of a personal union. By this interpretation Cyril's epistola dogmatica, which contained this term[2], was made acceptable to western thought. But even Cyril's epistola synodica with its anathematisms, once so sharply attacked by the Antiochians, although it was not recognised, was spared criticism[3]. And more, Dioscorus, Cyril's successor, who had been a more incautious upholder of the Alexandrian tradition than Cyril and who at the Robber-synod had declared the assertion of two natures after the union to be unlawful[4], although he was deeposed, was nevertheless not declared a heretic[5]. On the other side also Theodoret, whom a decree of the Robber-synod had deposed[6], was present in Chalcedon. Pope Leo
- ↑ This is expressly said in the Collatio cum Severianis (Mansi, viii, 821 e—822 a) and is to be seen also in the proceedings of the Chalcedonian council itself (comp. Ermoni, De Leontio Byzantino, Paris, 1895, p. 100 f. and 111 f.). I now give up my former opinion, that Cyril's epistola synodica was implicitly acknowledged (Leontius von Byzanz 1887, p. 50, Hauck's Real-Encycklopädie, v, 646, 40).
- ↑ Migne, 77, 48 b: ἐὰν δὲ τὴν καθ’ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν … παραιτούμεθα, ἐμπίπτομεν εἰς τὸ δύο λέγειν υἱούς.
- ↑ That is less than "acknowledged implicite" (comp. above note 1).
- ↑ Mansi, vi, 737 c.
- ↑ Mansi, vi, 1094 f., comp. Mansi, vii, 103 b: Anatolius … dixit: propter fidem non est damnatus Dioscorus, sed quia excommunicationem fecit domino archiepiscopo Leoni et tertio vocatus est et non venit.
- ↑ The second synod of Ephesus together with etc. ed. by S. G. F. Perry, 1881, pp. 251–258.
