Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Third Ecumenical Council/The Anathematisms of Cyril/Anathematism VIII

VIII.

anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man (&#7936;&#957;&#945;&#955;&#951;&#966;&#952;&#8051;&#957;&#964;&#945; ) ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this &#8220;Together with&#8221; is added [i.e., by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] &#8220;The Word was made flesh&#8221;:&#160; let him be anathema.

Notes.

VIII.

If any one says that the form of a servant should, for its own sake, that is, in reference to its own nature, be reverenced, and that it is the ruler of all things, and not rather, that [merely] on account of its connection with the holy and in itself universally-ruling nature of the Only-begotten, it is to be reverenced; let him be anathema.

On this point [made by Nestorius, that &#8220;the form of a servant is the ruler of all things&#8221;] Marius Mercator has already remarked with justice, that no Catholic had ever asserted anything of the kind.

Petavius notes that the version of Dionysius Exiguus is defective.

Nestorius captiously and maliciously interpreted this as if the &#8220;form of a servant&#8221; according to its very nature (ratio) was to be adored, that is should receive divine worship.&#160; But this is nefarious and far removed from the mind of Cyril.&#160; Since to such an extent only the human nature of Christ is one suppositum with the divine, that he declares that each is the object of one and an undivided adoration; lest if a double and dissimilar cultus be attributed to each one, the divine person should be divided into two adorable Sons and Christs, as we have heard Cyril often complaining.