Nestorius

Christian necropolis of the Kharga Oasis, where Nestorius died and was probably buried

Nestorius of Constantinople (c. 386 - 451) was an early Christian prelate who served as Archbishop of Constantinople from 10 April 428 to 11 July 431. He was a Christian theologian from the Catechetical School of Antioch, and several of his teachings in the fields of Christology and Mariology were seen as controversial and heretical, causing major disputes. In 431, he was condemned and deposed from his see by the Council of Ephesus, presided over by his archrival Saint Cyril of Alexandria, but the counter-council led by John I of Antioch vindicated him and deposed Cyril in return. Nestorius refrained from attending both of these councils and instead sought retirement from the Byzantine Emperor.

Quotes about

• Now do we say that the nature of the Word became flesh by undergoing change, nor that it was transformed into an entire man of soul and body; rather do we say that the Word, in a manner indescribable and incomprehensible, personally (hypostatically) united to Himself flesh animated by a rational soul, and thus became Man and was called the Son of Man...

Nor was He first born of the Holy Virgin as an ordinary man, in such a way that the Word only afterwards descended upon Him; rather was He united [with flesh] in the womb itself, and thus is said to have undergone birth according to the flesh, inasmuch as He makes His own the birth of His own flesh...

For this reason [the Holy Fathers] have boldly proclaimed the Virgin Theotokos.

• Excerpt from the Second Letter of Cyril of Jerusalem to Nestorius, quoted in DB, 111a) (Denzinger-Banwart, ed. 24-25 by Umberg; Barcelona, 1948). As reported in Father Paul Palmer, SJ, Mary in the Documents of the Church, p. 10 (of 129), Lowe and Brydone (printers) Ltd, London L.W. 10, for Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd, 28 Ashley Place, London, S.W.I. (with nihil obstat by E.A Cerny, S.S, D.D., and imprimatur by Franciscus P. Keough, D.D., Archbishop of Baltimore, given on 23 November 1951). OCLC 3286267.

• Anathema 1. If anyone does not confess that the Emmanuel is in truth God, and that the Holy Virgin is, in consequence, Theotokos (Mother of God), since she brought forth according to the flesh the Word of God who has become flesh, let him be anathema.

• Appended to the Fourth Letter of Saint Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius, quoted in DB, 113) (Denzinger-Banwart, ed. 24-25 by Umberg; Barcelona, 1948). As reported in Father Paul Palmer, SJ, Mary in the Documents of the Church, p. 11 (of 129), Lowe and Brydone (printers) Ltd, London L.W. 10, for Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd, 28 Ashley Place, London, S.W.I. (with nihil obstat by E.A Cerny, S.S, D.D., and imprimatur by Franciscus P. Keough, D.D., Archbishop of Baltimore, given on 23 November 1951).

• Fragments of the schisms came to mind, passages from the heresies that had divided the Western and Eastern Churches for centuries. Here Nestorius contested the title of Mother of God given to the Virgin, since, in the mystery of the Incarnation, she had carried a human creature in her womb and not God.

• Joris-Karl Huysmans, Controcorrente, translation into Italian and foreword by Fabrizio Ascari, with a writing of Guy de Maupassant and of Jules Barbey d'Aurevilly, Mondadori, Milano, 2019, ISBN 978-88-04-58916-7, p. 79 (in Italian).

• Nestorius, a follower of the Antiochian school where he had been trained, argued that in order to preserve the integrity of Christ's humanity, the divine person of the Word cohabited with the person of the man Jesus, with the consequence that in Christ, according to him, there are two natures and two persons, and Mary can only be called the mother of Christ and not the mother of God.

• Enrico Pepe, Martiri e santi del calendario romano, Città Nuova Editrice, Roma 2002. ISBN 88-311-9250-7 e ISBN 88-311-9246-9, p. 318 (in Italian).

• Nestorius reaffirms the unity of Christ despite the distinction between the natures, opposing the doctrine of Cyril of the single nature; he speaks of the “person” of the Son, in whom the relationship between the two natures is realised in a manner that is completely different from any other possible relationship between God and human beings. Nestorius is therefore careful to avoid the accusation of Christological dualism.

• Claudio Moreschini, Letteratura cristiana delle origini. Greca e latina, Città Nuova Editrice, Roma 2007. ISBN 978-88-311-1627-5, p. 148 (in Italian).

• Now, first of all, they believed in an orthodox manner in the preaching of the Apostles who lived [at the time of] Constantine [...]. Later, Satan, who has been the enemy of man since ancient times, rose up and seduced the people of the land of Byzantium, and they corrupted the Faith of Christ and introduced heresy into the Church of God through the mouth of Nestorius.

• Glory of Kings, La Gloria dei Re. Salomone e la Regina di Saba, a cura di Osvaldo Raineri, Editrice Fondazione Benedetta Riva, Roma, 2008. ISBN 978-88-903551-0-3 (in Italian). Ch. 93, p. 116.

• The error of Nestorius, who refused to acknowledge that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, is likewise excluded. Both Creeds assert that the Son of God was born or was made flesh of the Virgin Mary. The woman of whom any person is born is called his mother, for the reason that she supplies the matter for human conception. Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary, who provided the matter for the conception of the Son of God, should be called the true mother of the Son of God. As far as the essence of motherhood is concerned, the energy whereby the matter furnished by a woman is formed, does not enter into the question. She who supplied matter to be formed by the Holy Spirit is no less a mother than a woman who supplies matter that is to be formed by the energy latent in male seed. If anyone insists on maintaining that the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the Mother of God because flesh alone and not divinity was derived from her, as Nestorius contended, he clearly is not aware of what he is saying. A woman is not called a mother for the reason that everything that is in her child is derived from her. Man is made up of body and soul; and a man is what he is in virtue of his soul rather than in virtue of his body. But no man’s soul is derived from his mother. The soul is either created by God directly, as the true doctrine has it, or, if it were produced by transplanting, as some have fancied, it would be derived from the father rather than from the mother. For in the generation of other animals, according to the teaching of philosophers, the male gives the soul, the female gives the body.

Consequently, just as any woman is a mother from the fact that her child’s body is derived from her, so the Blessed Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God if the body of God is derived from her. But we have to hold that it is the body of God, if it is taken up into the unity of the person of God’s Son, who is true God. Therefore all who admit that human nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of His person, must admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. But Nestorius, who denied that the person of God and of the man Jesus Christ was one, was forced by logical necessity to deny that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God.

• Saint Thomas Aquinas, Compendium Theologiae, Ch. 222 - The Mother of Christ.