My final commentary on Maximus' post concerning the alleged quote from St. Timothy:
"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" (Timothy Aelurus, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276).
Since I do not have the context of this quote, then I shall proceed to give a number of possibilities. As I have said before, there are three.
1. Not true. Either this quote is not true or taken as a distortion.
Before I get into proving this, I will talk a little about St. Timothy. For those of you who did his/her homework in reading those two websites, a lot of this information is nothing new.
There are websites in the beginning of this forum that I provided in previous posts about St. Timothy. I encourage all of you to reread these websites. Also a good source of information would be Fr. VC Samuel's book "The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined," a most excellent and fair and balanced book, treating all Christological sides fair and showing truth based on primary sources and criticisms from other scholars.
Timothy was a pious man. He was forced to become a priest under the orders of St. Cyril himself. He was loved by St. Cyril. If you read any of the letters of St. Timothy preserved by Zacharias the historian, you find him EXTREMELY well versed in the Holy Fathers. He was not a heretic. After all, he lead the toughest fight against Eutychianism as a Pope, probably more so than the Chalcedonians, and also lead the fight against Chalcedon, in which he thought taught Nestorianism. He recognized the differences in natures and properties, but confessed them to be one "by dispensation" which is a word very importantly used by St. Cyril himself to described the "one incarnate nature." He convened the THIRD Council of Ephesus which, according to Zacharias, 700 BISHOPS, "more or less," unanimously accepted the condemnation of Appolinarians and Eutychians and the condemnation of Nestorians and Chalcedonians, implying that each group are very close in beliefs.
His fight against Eutychianism is very important. In it, there were men who took themselves to be of close relationship with Timothy and proclaimed that they taught the same doctrines as Timothy. These men's names were Isaiah and Theophilus, who went around teaching that the Lord's body was absorbed into His divinity, and thus He had one divine nature. These men went around everywhere proclaiming their Eutychian doctrine to be in harmony with St. Timothy. St. Timothy wrote two crucial letters (preserved by Zacharias), first containing his beliefs and the beliefs of early church fathers (showing how smart and well-versed he is of the early Church fathers, and the second containing a clear condemnation of those two men who went around spreading rumors and lies about St. Timothy's beliefs. St. Timothy excommunicates them and sends this letter to the Emperor to make known the publicity of his excommunication and makes all the people of his church know that he excommunicates them:
And I now give sentence upon Isaiah and Theophilus, who say that the body of the Lord is of His own divine Nature, and not of ours, and who deny His true humanity, thereby cutting themselves off from the fellowship of the holy fathers and mine; that no man henceforth hold communion with them.
Now, this leads me to examine possibility number 1 could be either:
1. Something preserved by Chalcedonians that they heard Isaiah and Theophilus said as if it was from Timothy.
2. A quote either distorted or taken from someone who is not Timothy, perhaps Isaiah and Theophilus themselves, who did not say that Timothy said this.
3. A made-up quote simply to further the causes of desperate Chalcedonians, based probably on the heretical confessions of Isaiah and Theophilus.
It is possible that confusion can occur as to the real implications behind the believer. For Leo in fact wasn't a Nestorian, but Nestorius praised him for his confession of faith and the suppression of "heretics" like Cyril and his successor Dioscorus. And Nestorians around the world accepted Chalcedon and celebrated it as a victory of their own faith. It was these events that made us accuse Leo and Chalcedon of Nestorianism.
Perhaps also, in a similar manner, the Chalcedonians confused Timothy of being friends and in communion with Isaiah and Theophilus, despite the clear condemnation and excommunication of both these men, and of any Eutychian, and despite the 700 assembled at Ephesus condemning both Eutyches and Nestorius. Despite all of that, I stand here to tell you that confusion is possible, but Timothy is no heretic.
2. This quote may have been taken out of context.
Notice there are three dots after Cyril which shows there was more to be read. Perhaps there's somethings there that explains the quote a bit further, or something before the word "Cyril" or after the last word that can explain the context of this quote written. I can't talk much here, for I do not know what exactly the context of this quote written is. This is simply a grey area, and I leave this possibility only to keep Chalcedonians and others to think and to investigate themselves on the implication of the quote and not the quote itself. Besides, if you read the letters of Timothy, which are provided by those two websites, which are excerpts from Zacharias' historical research, you will see his Orthodoxy no different than that of St. Maximus the Confessor.
Proceeding on to perhaps the most difficult of all three possibilities:
3. Suppose in fact that Timothy did mean every word that was written here. Did he do it because he was a heretic? Again, I refer you to read his letters and see for yourself. Did he do it because he hated Cyril? No, for he was a successor, and followed all of Cyril's traditions and preserved his thought and theology. The man wrote Cyril in the diptychs of the memorial of holy fathers, which shows that he considers St. Cyril to be a doctor, along with Dioscorus.
So then what if he did write this and disagree with St. Cyril, perhaps out of love? Do the words "fickled" and "censured" seem to be too much for you to handle? These are simply words of disagreement to what he believes, something that St. Cyril strayed from the early fathers' beliefs. "One nature" is not heretical if there are Orthodox implications. I encourage you all to read St. Timothy's letter provided by Zacharias, where he just pours out all the knowledge of the Holy Fathers who confessed Christ's body to be real. Four men of great interest that he quoted, and confirmed by the scholars that translated and analyzed Timothy's letter, either condemned anyone who confessed Christ to be "two natures" or confessed "one Incarnate nature" of Christ. These men were:
St. Athanasius:
'And
29 we confess that He is the Son of God, and God in the Spirit, and man in the flesh. And there are not two natures in one Son, one to be worshipped and the other |85 unworthy of worship; but there is
one Nature of God the Word, Who became incarnate, and Who, along with the flesh in which He is clothed, is to be worshipped with one worship.'
St. Julius of Rome:
They indeed, who confess that the God of heaven became incarnate from the Virgin, and that He being joined to His flesh was one, give themselves
needless trouble in contending with the maintainers of the opposite view, who affirm (as I have heard)
that there are two natures. Since John proved our Lord to be one by saying, "The Word became flesh."4 And Paul by saying, "There is one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things."
36 Now, if He Who was born from the Virgin was named Jesus, and He it is through Whom were ail things;
He is one nature because He |87 is one Person, Who is not divided into two. For the nature of the body was not separate, nor yet did the Nature of the Godhead remain distinct at the Incarnation; but just as man, composed of body and soul, is one nature, so also He, Who is in the likeness of men, is one Jesus Christ.
St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker:
And
42 He is the true incorporeal God who appeared in the flesh, a perfect Being;
He is not two persons nor two natures. For we do not worship Four, God, and the Son of God, and a man, and the Holy Spirit; but, on the contrary, we anathematise those who act so wickedly, and who would place man in the glory of God. But we hold that God the Word became man for the sake of our redemption, and that He took our likeness upon Him, and that He who came in our likeness is in His true Nature the Son of God, but in the flesh a man, our Lord Jesus Christ.
And of course,
St. Cyril himself:
They say, if Christ be perfect God and perfect man, and the same is of the Nature of the Father in the Godhead and of our nature in the manhood, how is He perfect if His human nature is not seen? and how is He of our nature if that actual and self-same nature which is ours be not seen? The answer which we have given at the beginning should suffice to enlighten them. For if, when speaking of one nature of the Word, we refrained from saying "incarnate," rejecting the dispensation, their word would be plausible when they ask, "How can He be perfect in manhood and in Nature?" But since our word indeed testifies that He is perfect in manhood and in Nature by saying that He became flesh, therefore let them cease from these objections, and not lean upon a broken reed.
So my dear brethren, it shows that even St. Athanasius and many other fathers affirmed "one nature" and condemned "two" for Christ is not two persons. That was the interpretation forgotten or ignored by the council of Chalcedon. St. Timothy not only uses these quotes to defend the reality of Christ's body and condemn Eutychians, but also uses them to affirm "one nature" is Orthodox and "two natures" is heterodox.
So it could explain the "blameless" disagreement that Timothy had with St. Cyril. And I say blameless because he wasn't the only father to do so. Chalcedonians seem to forget their most important and most loved father, St. Maximus the Confessor did the same in his sixth Opusculum, disagreeing with St. Gregory Nazianzen on a certain quote:
If you understand Jesus's prayer, "Father, if possible, le this cup pass from me" (Mt. 26:39), which gives the indication of resistance, as expressed by the man "not that we conceive in the role of Savior (for his will in no way contradicts God, since it has been completely deified), but who is just like us, seeing as the human will does not always follow God but so often resists and contends with him," as the divine Gregory says, what do you make of the rest of the prayer, "Let not what I will, but what you will prevail?" Is it a matter of resistance or disagreement? Certainly no one of a right mind will dispute that it is a matter neither of contention nor cowardice but of perfect harmony and concurrence.
And if it is a matter of perfect harmony and concurrence, whom do you understand as the subject? The man who is just like us, or the man we consider we consider in the role of Savior? If it is from the man who is just like us, then our teacher Gregory errs when he declares "...seeing as the human will does not always follow God but so often resists and contends with him." For it follows God, it is not resisting him, and if it is resisting him, it is not following him. These two assertions, being contrary, mutually nullify and exclude each other. If, however, you understand the subject of the phrase "Let not what I will, but what you will prevail" to be not the man just like us but the man we consider as Savior, then you have confessed the ultimate concurrence of his human will with the divine will...
etc. etc. etc.
St. Maximus in this whole Opusculum never really supported St. Gregory, but left this assertion as something that we may never know what St. Gregory meant. So worst case scenario, St. Maximus did not relent from disagreeing, rather harshly, with St. Gregory Nazienzen, who was almost 300 years before St. Maximus, as opposed to St. Cyril and St. Timothy who met each other. Here, St. Maximus however knew what the Orthodox faith was. He was careful as not to accept his assertion, and rejected it. "No one in their right mind" would say that, according to him, and perhaps our teacher Gregory did err.
So if St. Timothy actually did call St. Cyril "fickle," people like Maximus and Rick of Essex forgot that their own favorite saint proceeded to make supposedly pejorative comments against St. Gregory Nazienzen, a more qualified theologian than St. Cyril because of time. If Gregory wasn't "in his right mind," did that mean St. Maximus the Confessor was a heretic? I'll let Maximus and Rick answer that question.
Meanwhile, orthodoxinfo.com and people who support their cause have yet to prove St. Timothy, St. Philoxenus, St. Dioscorus, St. Severus, etc. heretics. Until then, so far, the arguments our dear TAW fanatic members used are all taken out of context and are simply false, as I have mostly proven, and that the letters of the holy fathers that were condemned by Chalcedon and later councils prove them to be false as well. Their letters and comments are online. Here's a website:
tertullian.org/fathers
In it read "Philoxenus," "Severus," and "Zacharias of Melytine." In it you will find the treasured grace of Orthodoxy, a radiant light hidden by the ignorance of scared and stubborn Chalcedonians.
May God bless you all and lead you to the truth. Hopefully by now, I have shown you not to take the information from orthodoxinfo.com and TAW members Maximus and Rick of Essex seriously.
I'm open to questions and criticisms. But those who present the same arguments against me will prove their own ignorance.
God bless.
