THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS [431], THE THEOLOGICAL ISSUES ADDRESSED, AND THE KEY FIGURES INVOLVED.

Student’s Name
Registration
Course
Date

CONTENTS Topic 4 The Introduction…..4 ThesisStatement 5 Nestorius: Author of Heresy………………………………………………………………………6 The Theology of the Council…………………………………………………………………..…12 Findings…………………………………………………....15 Bibliography 16

THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS [431], THE THEOLOGICAL ISSUES ADDRESSED, AND THE KEY FIGURES INVOLVED. INTRODUCTION This paper presents an inspiring story that focuses on the Christian enthusiasm concerning the faithful during the period of the fifth century. The faithful Christians staged war where they opposed the heresy that could have been the cause of degrading the faith through the incarnation and finally leading to the derogation of the Mother of God's dignity. Following this instance, it is very much possible to imagine that the good reaction or even its absence in the present times ecumenical Liberals leads to the emergence of Nestorius during our time1. However, the Catholics who lived in the fifth century, glory to God, had a close relationship with Martyrs Age. In this regard, it then becomes necessary to find out how these Catholics defended their faith, taking into consideration that for each and every moment that a Catholic follower prays these days, conducts such prayers through the enthusiasm of Ephesus in 431. Indeed, an Ecumenical or the General Council of the Church refers to the sole assemblage of bishops around the globe lead by the Pope. Their aim, in this case, is to facilitate the discussions about those issues that revolve around the faith or discipline cases of ecclesiastical types. As at present, there twenty Councils that begin with the Nicea and finally ends at Vatican II.
1Svigel, Michael J. "The Phantom Heresy: Did the Council of Ephesus (431) Condemn Chiliasm?" Trinity Journal 24, no. 1 (Spring, 2003): 105-12, 208
2ibd.114
In this regard, the glory of the Council of Ephesus is the subject of discussion especially with regards to the historical list altogether. The instance took almost a year for the Lord of 431 during the times when Saint Celestine I was the presiding Pope and Theodosius the Younger as the Emperor. Similarly, the function took place in the city of Asian Minor, since it had the bestowment of the name of the Council and at the same time also bestowed the instance of immortality.
Elsewhere, due to the instance of some heresy that was taking place in the East by Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, and Pope Celestine gave the order to the Council. Also known as Nestorianism derived from its founder, the heresy proceeded to the extent that it attacked the second great Mystery of Faith or the Incarnation or the God of the man responsible for redemption3. Following this chain of events, the instance became an excellent chain of implementation that led to the destruction of faith and tradition up to the time when God decided to raise the saints with the objective of supervising the issues of blasphemies and some teachings that were not true from Bishop Nestorius and his followers. Due to this instance, this paper will proceed to give the full story covering the conflict that was between the saints and the sinners.
THESIS STATEMENT
The Council of Ephesus is said to contain the most confused set of proceedings of any of the ecumenical councils. The council met with the objective of proving the “oneness of Jesus Christ”, also known as monophysitism, but scholars have concluded that the aftermath of the council was more effective than the council itself.

3Rivington, Luke. "ANGLICAN WRITERS AND THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS." The Dublin Review, 1836-1910, no. 2 (04, 1892):296-324,
NESTORIUS: AUTHOR OF HERESY
Nestorius did his studies in the most renowned theological and Biblical school of Antioch before emerging to be the Archbishop of Constantinople. Similarly, this same school that he undertook his theological studies also produced the likes of Saint John Chrysostom, who was very proficient with regards to teachings about the Catholics during the period of an early fifth century. Added to the school also being famous for the literal methodology of inquiry with regards to the Sacred Scriptures, on some occasions it was at odds with the fairness concerning the school of Alexandria which on its part championed for the more mystical and allegorical method of interpretation of the Bible4. That said both systems at first were orthodox though it is worth to note that to extreme occasions, both had their equal heresy. The instance, in this case, best explains what took place in the Antiochene School, at that time when Nestorius was the brightest student where in this time, one teacher going by the name Theodore of Mopsuestia backslid from the traditional doctrine with regards to the union of natures in the God-Man. In this regard, both Theodore and his disciples messed up with the mystery concerned with the Hypostatic Union Itself; that is the union that was between the Divine Nature of Our Lord and the human nature. For instance, Theodore and his group decided to adopt the current salvation. Hence, according to them, there was no mystery and, as a result, they went to explain the truth behind the instance of taking duality in Christ.
4Ferguson, Everett. Church History Volume 1: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,2013.37

On similar note, the students also learned that Jesus was a person whereby the Divine Logos gave an assumption despite retaining his reality as a person. Following this instance, it becomes not wise as they way they postulated that God was given birth to, went through suffering until he succumbed to his death5. The fact, in this case, makes it not possible to apply these passive inequalities concerning the infinite and the impossible Person of the Logos. However, to them, they continually did the same where they insisted that Christ was given birth to, underwent through suffering and finally died in the long run though they continue to add that Christ was different from God. The facts gave here indeed renders of no value the inspired testimony from the Apostle Saint John where he insisted that the world is a product of creation from the flesh. Theodore on his part criticized the idea by insisting that it was such foolish to believe that the birth of God was a result from a virgin lady. Up to date, the pernicious opinion does not have a way into the external realm from the famously known conversation plus thank God. In this case, the common Catholic maintained his traditional piety and faith in inconvincible new poison. Nevertheless, the instance remained with much wavering peace that had threats daily which could even lead to the emergence of religious wars. And to be precise enough, the instance is what led to the ascendancy of Nestorius to the imperial Patriarchate in 428. Elsewhere, it was not such soon when Nestorius became an abbot of a monastery in Antioch after assumption of the office than when some specific curate from his line created the ignition of flames of differed opinions concerning most of the sermons he presented in the Cathedral church.
5Ferguson, Everett. Church History Volume 1: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,2013.45
For instance, on one occasion, he echoed that it was not such wise to refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos or the bearer of God. Following this instance, the faithful became angry for to them they always paid a lot of tributes for the title to Mary. Similarly, the Patriarch who stressed that he emerged from his curate defense following a sequence of lectures on the successful times during the days that followed. Consequently, the faithful sat despite being stunned as they paid attention to their pastor who uttered such blasphemies in more fiery statements. For instance, they inquired whether it was wise to refer to Mary as the God-bearer6. The other challenging question was whether indeed God had a mother. Following these developments, there is needed to give an excuse over the issue of heathenism that talked about the mother of gods. One of these heathenisms insisted that Mary was not the bearer of God where it supported this notion by rejection that there was no way the creator could bear the creator though it agreed that the same man had resemblance with God.
In another instance, one intelligent lawyer going by the name Eusebius managed to earn himself the honor of being the first to offer opposition to the new heresy. For instance, he proceeded to cause interruptions to Patriarch's discourse where shouted that it is the eternal word that defines the Incarnate Mary. Following these developments, the news that came with excitements concerning the upset in the whole of the imperial city covered the way religious news also does in a much faster way through the cores of the areas inhabited mostly by the Christians in the world. However, the same instance had more impact in the Alexandria, which was the capital of Egypt during those days compared to any other part of the world.

6Rivington, Luke. "ANGLICAN WRITERS AND THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS." The Dublin Review, 1836-1910, no. 2 (04, 1892):296-324,
For example, the early city of the Nile grew through the faith spread by the Evangelist Saint Mark, who reinstated on the fresh memories of the labors from the famous Saint Athanasius for her salvation. On the same note, through the leadership of the Orthodox going by the name Cyril was also an important person in ensuring the spread of the Christian doctrines in this region. Being that he was that intellectual added with the extensive knowledge of Scriptures plus that soul that had a burning desire in the horn of God, Cyril differed with Nestorius in several sermons where showed the fallacies that rotated on the issue of the welfare of the flock as orchestrated by Nestorius. Following this chain of events, there were treaties and letters that flowed starting from the ever active Cyril through to the solitaries, monks as well as the clergy7. The instance also did not forget the Emperor, the imperial ladies and even Nestorius in particular. The main objective of the letter was to give warnings to the faithful to be on the watch out and also avoid the issue of giving mild treatments of the Patriarch during his tenure.
With regards to the same, Nestorius being not in a position to give answers to the concerns raised by Cyril in his letter, he opted for personal slanders that indeed had not truth behind them and at the same time targeted Cyril and this case but just depicting the facts that were from the base of his mind. After the failure of Cyril in this perspective in bringing the heresiarch to his reality, he thought that sometimes the Emperor II, Theodosius II would apply his influence to offer checks to Nestorius.
7Davis, Leo D. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History andTheology. Collegeville: Liturgical Press,1990. 453

However, the Emperor on his part had a lot of concerns about securing the sovereignty of the Patriarchate of Constantinople compared to the case of providing the defense to the divinity of Christ. In this regard, he quashed any hopes from Cyril though abruptly taking sides with regards to the new heresy. For instance, there was only one option for the ever curious Alexandrian where, in this case, he had to make Bishop of Rome, Pope Celestine aware of the matter. Through the letter that he addressed to the Holiness, Cyril noted on the bare distressing conditions of Church located in the East. After receiving the letter from Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria in his reply from Pope Celestine got encouraged and after that ordered for another local synod within the Capital. The reason is that through this capital is where there was the proclamation of the twelve anathemas of his own in opposition to Cyril's pronouncements8. At this end, the Patriarch of Constantinople who was fully aware of the rebukes from Rome opted to take an action concerning the typical heretics that was present in all the occasions. For instance, he decided to make appeals beginning from Pope through to the council. However, the holding from the same council remained very much inevitable in its nature. For instance, the whole of the East was the center of controversy regarding control from the time when such wrangles started. The instance where the Emperor made requests over it plus the requests from the monks as well as Cyril himself who was the person responsible for bringing the issue into publicity such that it caught the attention of Pope Celestine evidently proves this instance
8Ferguson, Everett. Church History Volume 1: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,2013.57

The Bishop of Rome in combination with the Emperor of the East decided to set a date for discussing over the matter. The meeting was relevant due to the instance of the growing influence of the Pentecostal Church in Ephesus City. With regards to the same, there were signed letters of invitation from the Emperors of both West, and the East posted to every metropolitan with the purpose of requesting them with the inclusion of their willing sufferers to attend the meeting. Similarly, there was also another personal invitation sent to the Saint Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo. However, the Holy Doctor failed to attend the Council since the messenger reached the city with the invitation letter; he found that the Bishop indeed died on August 28 (430 A. D.). In this regard, the Ephesus who still alive as at present as the poor Greek city of Aya Souk or the Holy Theologian indeed got his evangelization from Saint Paul, who visited the area for three years9. At a later date, the Holy Theologian, Saint John, as well as God's Mother herself return peacefully to their home after being forced to leave Jerusalem. Indeed, the question that left many wondering over is what could have been the best setting compared to the city of Ephesus for the first ever Marian Council with regards to excellence.
By the time the scheduled meeting reached, that is June 6, 431, all the delegates were present except John, the Patriarch of Antioch, and the papal legates. Cyril through his efforts and also as the Council's President through consultation with Memnon, the Bishop of Ephesus, opted to wait for those who had not arrived before they could proceed with the meeting.

9Davis, Leo D. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History andTheology. Collegeville: Liturgical Press,1990.543
On his side, the Patriarch John sent an apology with regards to his late arrival but providing for what proved to legitimate excuses but in a real sense could not fully justify his lateness since his primary objective was to postpone attending the session so that he could meet with his friend, Nestorius. Cyril being aware of this friendship allowed the meeting to continue despite two weeks of delay waiting for John. Also, the accused hierarchy was present in conjunction with sixteen bishops plus other sympathizers that, in this case, justified the reason for not further delaying the meeting. Sometimes one may want to know why Cyril opted to wait for the papal legates10. The reason for this is that the available delegates were not such important participants of the discussion with regards to the passing of judgment on some issues.
THE THEOLOGY OF THE COUNCIL There was a solemn reading of the Nicene Creed followed by the reading of the second letter from Cyril to the Nestorius. The instance, in this case, resulted in the setting down of the Catholic Doctrine with regards to the unity of the Natures in Christianity against those teachings from Nestorius. Similarly, all the Bishops made a declaration concerning the perfection of the letter with regards to Nicene Faith. Likewise, throughout the proceedings, Saint Cyril insisted on the issue of unique Personal nature of Christ as that which is more of the Eternal Logos Himself. In this regard, Cyril argued that Christ’s body is not anyone’s body but from the word. Likewise, the humane nature of the Christ has no any relationship with the humane nature of a person though the Personality where it has its origins is those of the logos.
10Clayton, Paul B. The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus: Antiochene Christology From the Council of Ephesus (431) to the Council of Chalcedon (451). Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2007. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed September 19, 2015). 67
With regards to the same, if the humanity was to be that of Christ, then it is the mere instrument that is from Godhead where, in this case, there are not relevant differences from those preached by Moses since him, too was God's instrument.
In another instance, the Holy Bishops proceeded to come up with an analogy concerned with the union between Natures in Christianity and that of the union of the human's body and soul as well. In this regard, the Bishop reiterated that at such times when people speak of a man being born or dying since the man's soul is spiritual, and then it becomes obvious of not being able to be born or dying when the same notion still insists that man was born or died. Following this instance, the whole man is a composite body and soul and, as a result, it is possible to divide man as much as it is possible to distinguish between these parts that make up a man11. On similar note, the Person, who is the Savior as much as distinction of the human nature with regards to suffering and death, based on the divine in which such suffering or death may come from, there is no division of Christ but only a confession that Christ Himself is single Person and that very Person is God. Another argument from Bishop of Alexandria was that when the person that died for people on Calvary was not God, then the reality is that people are in a state of despair since they are yet to undergo redemption and the same time no any man will be willing to pay for such price altogether. 11Bleecker, Arline. "EPHESUS: EXCURSION INTO HISTORY." Orlando Sentinel, Jul 13, 1997.

Indeed, the title of Theotokos generated a lot of controversies as it proclaimed that it was the source of harmony with regards to the ancient faith and on top of this gave declarations concerning the nature of the orthodoxy12. In this regard, it rejected the grant of the title of the Virgin Mary since it regarded it as the deprivation of the communion aspect of the faithful. Based on the writings of Saint Cyril with regards to his theological points, the writing reiterated that it was not that one who was given birth to by Mary from the Logos originated but the Logos facilitated the unity of the Christ with the Human Nature in Mary's womb and as result the instance of the after flesh born. After reading of the Saint's writings, there was the attendance of the letter that Nestorius wrote to Cyril in response to the same. After the conclusion of the meeting, all bishops, protested in unity combined with majesty and authority that, "Anathema with regards to suspicious teachings, anathema with regards to any is for such opinions. They remain contradictory to the Sacred Scriptures as well as the traditions defined by the Forefathers".

12Bleecker, Arline. "EPHESUS: EXCURSION INTO HISTORY." Orlando Sentinel, Jul 13, 1997.

FINDINGS * The council opened on June 22, 431 with 153bishop * The Council of Ephesus emphasized the oneness of Jesus Christ (Mary is the Kotoko's) * There was an opposing council under the leadership of John, bishop of Antioch, that met on June 26th containing 43bishops * The idea of monophysitism is the idea Jesus Christ, also being identical with the Son, is one person and one hypostasis (substance) in one nature: divine. * The Council of Ephesus in 431 in its letter to Pope Celestine confirmed the dispositions of Celestius, Pelagius, and Julian." * The reading aloud of written documents with the bishops giving their judgment replaced Councilor proceedings composed primarily of Oracle debate.

REFERENCES

Bleecker, Arline. "EPHESUS: EXCURSION INTO HISTORY." Orlando Sentinel, Jul 13,1997.
L4,
http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/278955464
?accountid=12085.
Clayton, Paul B. The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus : Antiochene Christology From the Council of Ephesus (431) to the Council of Chalcedon (451). Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2007. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed September 19,2015).
Davis, Leo D. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History andTheology.
Collegeville: Liturgical Press,1990.
Davis, William A. "EPHESUS -- ANCIENT WORLD'S JEWEL." Boston Globe (Pre-1997 Fulltext), Jul 05, 1987. A51, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/294404905
?accountid=12085.
Ferguson, Everett. Church History Volume 1: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,2013.
Rivington, Luke. "ANGLICAN WRITERS AND THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS." The Dublin Review, 1836-1910, no. 2 (04, 1892):296-324, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/2505716?a ccountid=12085.
Svigel, Michael J. "The Phantom Heresy: Did the Council of Ephesus (431) Condemn Chiliasm?" Trinity Journal 24, no. 1 (Spring, 2003): 105-12, http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/212890724
?accountid=12085.