2 hours of an exclusive 3 hour break throughout this entire day were dedicated to this forum, so don't you roll your eyes at me! lolThis is "unofficially" back?
Pedro, my response to your last post will be quite simple, and no more than a reiteration of what I already said in my last post:
There is nothing in the tome that clarifies a specific interpretation/connotation/implication of the expression “one person” over another. The alleged “context” which Augustine claims doesn’t exist; for the necessary context required is an appropriate definition of the hypostatic union in order to negate Nestorius “prosopic union” doctrine; just as St Cyril did before Chalcedon ever came into play. Leo's subjective intentions are irrelevant, for the documents received, and faith declared at an Ecumenical Council, are not only supposed to have some positive contribution to the Christological/Theological "developements" of the Church (and I contend Chalcedon did not nonetheless), but they're supposed to be a sword against the heretics.Regardless of Leo's subjective intentions, the fact of the matter is that both The Orthodox Church (“non-Chalcedonians”) and the Nestorian Church reasonably interpreted Nestorianism in Leo’s tome. When there is a dispute in terms of interpretation, as often happens with regards to legal contracts; the document must be analysed by the courts according to an objective criterion, such that the question to be answered becomes: “What would the reasonable person have reasonably interpreted from leo’s tome?”
Affirming that Christ is one person is simply an open blanket statement that allows Nestorians to get away with their heresy via a loophole; especially when many other statements made by Leo are certainly questionable and portray clear Nestorian implications; such that a mere affirmation of one person does not really vindicate the really questionable aspects of his tome. Why, for the life of me, would a legitimate Church council accept a document which employs language so confused and ambiguous, that a declared heretic and his entire heretical church are able to affirm acceptance of it along with the Chalcedonians? Take into account also, the point I’ve hammered in more than once now on this forum; that during this time it was NESTORIANISM that was STILL the ONLY real threatening heresy to the Church.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š By the mid fifth century it was STILL influential and growing fast DESPITE St Cyril’s Christology which was the Church’s strongest immune system to it. Chalcedon basically took down St Cyril’s shields, and gave them leo’s tome as their own weapon against us. Who knows where your Church would have ended up had it not called upon the latter councils to correct your Church’s errors made at Chalcedon?