The See of Constantinople after Chalcedon

[Thomas_Deretich]

Constantinople was given official status in 381, not only in 451, but many people in Egypt were sometimes slow to recognize 381 (or even resented it), and outright refused to recognize 451. Many people originally suspected that Cyril's Twelve Anathemas were one-sided or even might be Apollinarian leaning. The Church ultimately decided that the Twelve Anathemas were Orthodox, but, they were directed against the Nestorian heresy, and therefore, obviously, they were not balanced with anti-Eutychian statements to exclude that (opposite) heresy, which arose after the Anathemas were composed. Cyril himself reestablished communion with people who opposed the Twelve Anathemas if they condemned Nestorianism in other language. So, 451 and 553 were ultimately consistent with Saint Cyril but used clearer language (virtually the same as in some of Cyril's works) to exclude Monophysite confusion of the two natures. Cyril actually believe in "without confusion," but some alleged "allies" were uncomfortable with his consensus statement of 431, such as Theodotus of Ancyra and Acacius of Melitene and some even tried to "harden" (actually distort) Cyril, such as Dioscorus, Aelurus, and Severus. Those who backtracked on Chalcedon such as Acacius of Constantinople were rightly denounced by the Popes of Rome and by the eventual West-East Orthodox Chalcedonian-553-680 consensus. So, there is an ultimate consistency in the Chalcedonian tradition. Leo, Cyril, 553, and 680-681 are ultimately consistent. The anti-Chalcedon tradition is self-refuting, because it teaches the necessity of the deity and humanity remaining different and unconfused and then undermines that necessary dogma by denying that there are still two. Chalcedonians accept the entirety of Cyril. Anti-Chalcedonians knowingly take one part of Cyril and knowingly try to "harden" (distort) that side for schismatic purposes. Anti-Constantinople ethnonationalism played a role in the Monophysite schism and self-refuting heresy.

[Thomas_Deretich]

Many of the non-Greek non-Chalcedonians were anti-imperial and sided with Greek speaking leaders who opposed the West-East Imperial theological consensus. So, people rallied around Dioscorus/Aelurus (even though they had different policies than Cyril). But there was tension. Cyril wanted total West-East unity and accepted dividing the sayings between two natures in 433, not merely "in thought alone" and not merely "from two natures." His "allies" considered that a weakness and tried to harden (distort) his policy. What evidence do you have that the Antiochenes with whom Cyril joined in communion in 433 accepted the Twelve Anathemas? Historians say they did not and Cyril permitted them to commemorate the dead Theodore of Mopsuestia, although Cyril wanted to eliminate that commemoration eventually, but accepted it in the meantime as an oikonomia. The non-Chalcedonians DEPARTED FROM Cyril's moderation on diphysite language and instituted a new, much more hostile approach, which was noticeably different from Cyril's balance and moderation