|
|
Against Those Who Are Unwilling to Confess That the Holy Virgin Is Theotokos
|
|
|
|
The term Theotokos helped to establish the truth that Jesus Christ, who was born
of the Virgin Mary, was the preexisting Son of God who also became man without
ceasing to be God in order to recapitulate in Himself the entire humanity and
work out an eternal salvation for it. The point here is that Jesus Christ is the
same Son of God who as true God "was born" ineffably and eternally from the
Father and as true man was born in time and according to the flesh from the
Virgin for the completion of the ages. Jesus Christ is one person who unites in
Himself two natures, the divine and the human, and thus deifies the human by
leading it to participate in the perfections of the divine. The term Theotokos
brings out all these aspects of the mystery of the Incarnation and stresses its
soteriological import. St. Cyril was not the first to use this dogmatic term
Theotokos in a Christological dogmatic sense. Several theologians before him,
including St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians, as well as conciliar Church
documents, had used it in their writings. St. Cyril defended its propriety and
explained its dogmatic significance for the Church's doctrine of Christ, because
Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople denounced it as unacceptable. In the
debate that ensued, it became obvious that Nestorius entertained a false
doctrine of Christ, which eventually led to his condemnation. It was he who
became an innovator and deviator from the Church's Tradition and not St. Cyril
as some contemporary scholars have asserted. The present text can be described
as a model of Patristic theological discourse. It is an anti-heretical treatise,
which refers to a central dogma of Christian theology, the doctrine ofChrist.
Its importance lies, first, in that it demonstrates that dogma and exegesis are
intertwined in Patristic theological thought and discourse; and second, that it
shows that Patristic dogma is rooted in the biblical witness, and that the
Fathers handled the Scriptures in a different way than the ancient heretics and
many of our contemporary biblical scholars.
|
|
|
|