06_person_1223_chacledon

The Council of Ephesus affirmed that Jesus is one person and acts as one person. The Council of Kausala discussed Jesus having two natures, united but not mixed. There were three options, and the council decided that Jesus has two natures. The reasoning behind this was explained in a letter by Bishop Leo I to a heretic. This position was not popular in the Roman Empire, particularly in the East. So that was the Council of Ephesus. Jesus is one person, he acts as one person, and he is named as one person. Next up is the Council of Kausala. Jesus has two natures. They are united together, but they are not mixed together. Remember that Cyril of Alexandria taught strongly the unity of the divine person. There were still questions as to how this union happens. One of three options was possible. The first one is that there is a third new nature. The divine and human natures mix together and form one new nature. Not quite the same as those anymore. This is actually a heretical position denounced by almost the entire church. The second option was that the two natures fuse together but remain unmixed. So the divine and human natures retain all their properties but are nevertheless both represented in one nature. Jesus has one nature and yet is consubstantial with us and consubstantial with God. The third option is that Jesus has two natures. The divine and human natures remain unmixed and unfused and Jesus has two natures. The Council of Kausala decided on this third position that Jesus has two natures, not one nature. The heart of the reasoning for this was captured in a letter that Leo I, the famous bishop of Rome, wrote to Eutychius, a heretic from Constantinople, who thought that first Christology mentioned above said that Jesus has a new nature which is not really the same as ours anymore. In a letter he wrote to Flavian, often called Leo's Tomb, it outlines why we need Jesus to have two natures, one to remain fully human and one to remain fully divine. However, this position called diophysitism was not popular among many in the Roman Empire, especially in the East.