tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16278999.post1130239681219862285..comments2023-04-27T05:31:50.020-06:00Comments on Is My Phylactery Showing?: Where There are Two Wills, One Finds a Way*Deacon Bill Burnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11484509700642430451noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16278999.post-60374856396543069332009-03-12T08:43:00.000-06:002009-03-12T08:43:00.000-06:00One more point. While Cyril was orthodox in his vi...One more point. While Cyril was orthodox in his view, his language wasn't as precise, which led to charges of both Appolinarism and Monophysitism against him. Leo's Tome is crystal clear in comparison. You'll note this in the fourth paragraph of the essay (which also notes the various letters aside form Leo's Tome in which the Holy Father addresses the matter). Again, St. Cyril was one voice, albeit a major one. No teaching of the Church is a matter of only one voice.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, you have your own opinion. The essay was in response to a very focused assignment, and from what I read (assigned and additional source material), both Fathers were considered major contributors to the doctrine. I'm in no position to dispute the claims of my lecturer, Jaroslav Pelikan, or William Jurgens. If I ever do patrological work on St. Cyril, I'll certainly consider the work you mention.Deacon Bill Burnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11484509700642430451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16278999.post-47547713595021879512009-03-12T07:59:00.000-06:002009-03-12T07:59:00.000-06:00Point 1, Fair enough.2. If Celestine commissioned ...Point 1, Fair enough.<BR/><BR/>2. If Celestine commissioned Cyril, then it is interesting that Cyril set aside the pope's decision at the council. Secondly, as I noted previosly, the council had to verify Leo's Orthodoxy. See McGuckin's Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. Its one of the standard works.<BR/><BR/>If Cyril already taught dyothelitism, then the Sixth council didn't develop anything. That was Maximus' claim.<BR/><BR/>So here's the question. Do you think the divine will determines the human will to always will the good or was it possible for Christ to sin in his human will?Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16278999.post-15753415382036385412009-03-12T07:51:00.000-06:002009-03-12T07:51:00.000-06:00The two-wills issue came up as a result of this di...The two-wills issue came up as a result of this discussion. As I noted, the title was't strictly apropos, but it was catchy (given the idiom). The problem seemed intractible, but because Christ had two wills, He provided a way.<BR/><BR/>Second, I'm not sure what your point is. Cyril taught the doctrine, as did Leo. Leo's tome was in support of the teaching, which Cyril dealt with in detail. Your reading of this matter as as sort of test of Pope Leo's orthodoxy doesn;t comport with any of the historical materials I've read. Cyril was commissioned by Celestine to handle Nestorius, but Leo wrote the definitive formula (Pelikan, Vol. 1, 263).<BR/><BR/>Third, councils affirm what's present in the Tradition as a whole. They don'ty simply rubber stamp one person's views. Cyril's and Leo's teaching won because it comported with and passed on what scripture and what previous Fathers taught in less developed forms. The council is a mechnanism for development in that it determines when a point has been determined definitively.Deacon Bill Burnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11484509700642430451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16278999.post-51606765670246858962009-03-12T07:36:00.000-06:002009-03-12T07:36:00.000-06:00First, where's the beef on the two wills?Second, L...First, where's the beef on the two wills?<BR/><BR/>Second, Leo's Tome wasn't the touchstone, Cyril was, whichis whythe council set up a special committee to examine Leo's Tome to make sure it was in line with Cyril's teaching.<BR/><BR/>Third, its hard to think of the council being a mechanism f development when Cyril explicitly taught two wills in Christ in his commentary on John, chapt 6.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.com