CC BY
22Oleg V. Davydenkov
Archpriest, Doctor of Theology, Candidate in Sciences St. Tikhon's Orthodox University for the
in Philosophy, Head of Department of History and Humanities
Literature of Ancient Eastern Churches 6, Likhov per., Moscow, 127051,
E-mail: [email protected] Russian Federation
The question of wills and energies in the Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria
Over the past thirty years, a number of works have appeared in patristic scholarship, the authors of which convincingly show that supporters of the Council of Chalcedon have at least no less reason to consider St Cyril of Alexandria as their predecessor than the so-called non-Chalcedonians. At the present time suspecting St Cyril of some kind of crypto-monophysitism is becoming a bad tone. However, so far no attempts have been made, on the one hand, to analyze the Christology of St Cyril for its compliance with the Orthodox post-Chalcedonian dyoenergist and dyothelite teaching, and, on the other hand, compare it with the monoenergist doctrine of the so-called moderate monophysitism (Severianism). Although in the time of St Cyril, questions about the wills and energies in Christ were not yet at the center of theological discussions, and the Archbishop of Alexandria himself, naturally, did not have a systematic view about the wills and actions of the God-man, however, his fairly numerous statements on these issues make it possible to determine the main direction of his Christological thought. In the writings of St Cyril one can find statements of a formally monoenergist nature, but their careful analysis taking into account the context shows that this "monoenergism" is purely verbal. Much more often St Cyril used dyoenergist and even dyofelite expressions, which were in principle incompatible with the consistent monoenergism of the Severians. Moreover, unlike the latter, St Cyril, like the post-Chalcedonian dyophysites, considered energy as an attribute of nature (essence), and not of person (hypostasis), and his idea that Christ's humanity is the own humanity of God the Word did not imply the passive character of this humanity. The Christological thought of St Cyril does not fit into the monoenergist-monothelite Severian scheme. Thus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, at least in some of his writings, reveals a clear inclination not only to ideas that later came to be called diphysite, but to what later came to be called dyophelitism.
Keywords: Christology, Chalcedonians, non-Chalcedonians, Severians, monoenergism, dyoenergism, monothelitism, dyothelitism, energy, will.
For citation: Davydenkov O.V. The question of wills and energies in the Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria. Theology: Theory and Practice, 2023, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 5-19. DOI: 10.24412/2949-3951-2023-0210
Давыденков Олег Викторович
протоиерей, доктор теологии, кандидат философских Православный Свято-Тихоновский
наук, заведующий кафедрой восточно-христианской гуманитарный университет
филологии и Восточных Церквей Российская Федерация, 127051,
E-mail: [email protected] Москва, Лихов пер., 6, стр. 1
Вопрос о воле и энергиях в христологии святителя Кирилла Александрийского
За последние тридцать лет в патристической науке появился целый ряд работ, авторы которых убедительно показывают, что сторонники Халкидонского собора имеют, по крайней мере, не меньше оснований рассматривать свт. Кирилла Александрийского в качестве своего предшественника, чем так называемые нехалкидониты. В настоящее время обвинять свт. Кирилла в некоем криптомонофизитстве становится дурным тоном. Однако до сих пор не предпринимались попытки, с одной стороны, проанализировать христологию свт. Кирилла на предмет ее соответствия православному послехалкидонскому диэнергистскому и дифелитскому учению, а, с другой, сравнить ее с моноэнергистской доктриной умеренного монофизитства (севириан-ства). Хотя во времена свт. Кирилла вопросы о волях и энергиях во Христе еще не находились в центре богословских дискуссий, и у самого Александрийского архиепископа, естественно, не было систематического учения о волях и действованиях Богочеловека, тем не менее, его достаточно многочисленные высказывания по этим вопросам дают возможность определить основное направление его христологической мысли. В сочинениях свт. Кирилла встречаются отдельные высказывания формально моноэнергистского характера, однако их внимательный анализ с учетом контекста показывает, что этот «моноэнергизм» является чисто вербальным. Значительно чаще свт. Кирилл использовал диэнергистские и даже дифелитские выражения, в принципе не совместимые с последовательным моноэнергизмом севириан. Кроме того, в отличие от последних, свт. Кирилл, подобно послехалкидонским дифизитам, рассматривал энергию как атрибут природы (сущности), а не лица (ипостаси), а его концепция усвоения человечества Богом Словом не предполагала пассивного характера воспринятого человечества. Таким образом, свт. Кирилл Александрийским, по крайней мере, в некоторых своих сочинениях обнаруживает явную склонность не только к идеям, которые позднее стали называться дифизитскими, но к тому, что впоследствии стали именовать дифелитством.
Ключевые слова: христология, халкидониты, нехалкидониты, севириане, моноэнергизм, диэ-нергизм, монофелитство, дифелитство, энергия, воля.
Для цитирования: Давыденков О.В. Вопрос о воле и энергиях в христологии святителя Кирилла Александрийского // Теология: теория и практика. 2023. Т. 2. № 2. С. 5-19. DOI: 10.24412/2949-3951-2023-0210
Since the 1990s, quite a significant number of works have appeared in patristic science, the authors of which come to the conclusion that St Cyril of Alexandria should be regarded as one of the predecessors of the IV Ecumenical Council, and the supporters of Chalcedon have at least as much reason to consider the Archbishop of Alexandria as their predecessor as the so-called non-Chalcedonians. Here it is necessary to indicate the fundamental works of J. McGuckin [McGuckin, 1994], B. Meunier [Meunier, 1997], H. van Loon [Loon, van, 2009; Loon, van, 2015] and a number of other researchers [Koen, 1991; Norris, 1975; Welch, 1994; O'Keefe, 1997; Keating, 2000; Weinandy, 2000; McKinion, 2000; Fairbairn, 2003; Bathrellos, 2004; Khaled, 2014; Шенборн, 1999. С. 80-100; Новиков, 2012; Новиков, 2014; Янг, 2013. С. 505-512; Кожухов, 2013; Кожухов, 2016]. However, such prominent scholars as A. Grillmeier [Grillmeier, 1973. P. 461-473] and J. Meyendorff [Мейендорф, 2000. С. 13-31] spoke about it much earlier. Thus, at the present time suspecting St Cyril of some kind of crypto-monophysitism is becoming a bad tone, although relatively recently such accusations in theological and Church historical literature were not uncommon [Harnack, von, 1990; Raven, 1923; Liebaert, 1951; Werner, 1957; Chadwick, 1951; Simonetti, 1982; Siddals, 1987; Siddals, 1989; Quasten, 1975. P. 136-142; Кар-ташев, 1993; Селезнев, 2002; Селезнев, 2005].
Nevertheless, no attempts have been made so far, on the one hand, to compare the Christology of St Cyril for its correspondence to the post-Chalcedonian dyoenergist and dyothelite teaching, and, on the other hand, to compare it with the monoenergist doctrine of Severus of Antioch.
Of course, one must take into account that in the works of the Alexandrian hierarch there is no systematic teaching about wills and actions. In St Cyril's epoch, these questions were not yet the subject of a special theological interest and the problem itself had not actually been formulated. The writings of the Archbishop of Alexandria contain only a few statements on this subject. Nevertheless, even on the basis of these fragments, it is possible to get some idea of the main theological intuitions and the general direction of his Christological thought, which, in principle, makes it possible to discuss the question of the extent to which the monoenergist and monothelite Christology of Severus corresponds to the spirit and letter of St Cyril's teaching.
Monoenergist expressions in St Cyril of Alexandria
Undoubtedly, in St Cyril's works one can find statements that may be interpreted in a monoenergist way. Once he used the expression «one energy»: «He (Christ) shows one and conjoint energy through both (^iav is ка! auyysv^ Si' a^otv sklSslkvugl t^v svspyeiav)» [Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1872. Vol. 1. P. 530]. The seventh-century Monothelites, for example, Macarius of Antioch [Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum Tertium. Vol. 2. Pt. 1, 1990. P. 25, 273-275], the main apologist of Monothelitism at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and the heretic patriarchs of Constantinople Sergius [Ibid. Vol. 2. P. 2, 1992. P. 529] and Pyrrhus [Maximus Confessor. Disputatio cum Pyrrho. Col. 344B], referred to these words of St Cyril.
Although this phrase sounds somewhat ambiguous, nevertheless, it admits the possibility of a dyothelite interpretation, an excellent example of which was offered by St Maximus the Confessor1.
Severus, in order to confirm his monoenergist position, appealed to the authority of St Cyril. In the «Letter to Oecumenius the Count» he refers to the «Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten», where St Cyril, using as an illustration of the Divine-human unity the image of a burning coal (Is 6. 6-7), says that God the Word «transformed what he adopted, i. e. united [with Himself] into His own glory and energy» (slç T^v éauxoù So^av is Ka! svspysiav) [Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1963. P. 221] and «He himself delivered to her (the flesh) the energy of His own nature» (t^ç ISiaç ^uaswç x^v svspysiav) [Ibid. P. 221]. In these words, the Monophysite theologian saw confirmation of his teaching about the one action of Christ and contrasted St Cyril's point of view with the horos of the Council of Chalcedon and the tomus of Pope Leo, in which the actions were distributed between the Word and humanity [Severus of Antioch, 1919. P. 8; cf.: Sévère d'Antioche, 1952. P. 266-267].
There are some sayings of St Cyril, which maintain that the flesh of Christ was filled with Divine power and energy, and He used His own humanity as an instrument:
«Christ acts divinely and at the same time humanly (Gslkwç ts a^a Ka! aw^aiLKwq évspyoùvxa XpiaTÔv); for the Divine is to desire in this way ... the human is to stretch out a hand» [Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1864. Col. 556B].
«The energy of the Word's power was carried by the holy flesh (t^ç toù Aoyou Suvà^swç T^v svspysiav ne^opnKev ^ ayia aap^), which He made His own» [Ibid. Col. 552C].
«So, it should be understood... that the holy flesh carried the Divine power and energy (t^v toù 0soù Suva^iv ts Ka! svspysiav ^ àyia ns^op^KS aap^)» [Ibid. Col. 768A].
«Christ seemed to move all the flesh into Himself in relation to energy (oXnv oapKa wansp siç sauTov ^sTaaT^aaç KaT' svspysiav), which consists in the ability to give life.» [Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1872. Vol. 1. P. 532]
Miracles «were committed through the flesh (stsXsTto Sià t^ç aapKoq), but they were not the works of the flesh (oùk ^v spya aapKÔç) ... the performed deeds resulted from the power of the Divinity (Tfl Suvà^si t^ç GsoT^Toq), although they were performed through the flesh» [Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1863. Col. 388C].
«It is possible, however, to see that He Himself let His flesh assimilate the glory of energies appropriate to God (t^ç svspysiaç Gsonpsnoùç T^v So^av)» [Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De incarnatione Unigeniti. P. 278].
1 St. Maximus gives two different interpretations of this expression of St Cyril. In theological and polemical treatises, he speaks of the impossibility of rejecting the «unitary» (^ovaSixaq) formulas of St Cyril and Dionysius the Areopagite, understood in the sense of «union» (svwolç) and mutual «fusion» (au^uta) of two natural energies [Maximus Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica 8. Col. 100BC]. According to St Maximus, anyone who does not properly accept both expressions, i.e. «one energy» and «two energies», without applying the former to the «union» (svwasi), and the latter to the natural «difference» (Sia^opa), will inevitably come either to separation or to mixing of natures [Ibid. Col. 105A]. In the «Disputation with Pyrrhus» St Maximus claims that St Cyril wanted to show in this way of expression that both the flesh itself and its natural action, by virtue of hypostatic union with the Word and deification, became akin to the Word. It is expressed, for example, in the fact that the flesh itself has become «completely life-giving». However, such an affinity, according to St Maximus, does not change the essential properties of humanity and, therefore, does not abolish the actual human energy [Disputatio cum Pyrrho. Cols. 344B-345C; cf.: Opuscula theologica et polemica. 8. Cols. 101A-105C].
«Having become a man,.. the Word of God often acted through His flesh (5ia T^q ISiaq aurou aapKoq noXXaKiq ev^pysi), having it as His own... One should also think this same way... about the soul doing things through its own body; after all, no one will say that these are the works of the soul alone, although it moves the body [to perform] things, but both...» [Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1859. Col. 1117CD]2
Of course, one can feel a certain monoenergist tendency in the above fragments, the inherent activity of Christ's humanity is here almost completely hidden from the author by the radiance of the glory of His Divinity and the direct outpouring of Divine energies into the flesh.
Verbal character of St Cyril's «monoenergism»
However, are there sufficient grounds to believe that this trend passes in St Cyril's works into doctrinal monoenergism? It seems that there is not.
First of all, we should note one philosophical premise of St Cyril's Christology, which fundamentally distinguishes his thought from the position of Severus. The «Thesaurus» contains at least two statements3, from which it follows definitely that for St Cyril, just as for the post-Chalcedonian dyophysites, energy is connected with nature, and not with a person (hypostasis), and the sameness of power and energy is an evidence of identity also in essence4.
Secondly, St Cyril nowhere explicitly states that the humanity of Christ was not the source of his own human activity.
Thirdly, wherever St Cyril expounds on the action of God the Word through the flesh, only miracles performed by Him are cited as examples of such actions, i.e. actions Divine by definition. From the statements of St Cyril it does not follow in any way that he recognizes the Divine power of the Logos as the cause of the natural human actions and states of the God-man. As for the special emphasis that the Archbishop of Alexandria places on the abundance of Divine energies in the humanity of Christ, in fact, there is nothing contrary in it to the patristic teaching about the deification of human nature in Christ. For St Cyril, this emphasis also had a special soteriological significance in connection with his teaching on the Eucharist [see: Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1960. P. 89].
The concept of Christ's humanity as an instrument is not at all alien to the dyoenergist tradition. For example, Leontius of Jerusalem said that the incarnated Son of God performed miracles using His body «as a natural instrument» (wq фиткой opyavou) [See: Leontius Hierosalymitanus, 1865. Col. 1757C]. The concept of «instrument» (opyavov) to explain the relationship between the humanity and the Divinity of the Savior was also used by St John of Damascus5 and St Maximus the Confessor [See: Opuscula theologica et polemica 5. Col. 64BC]. The latter explains that it was essential for St Cyril to show that the Word spreads His Divine
2 Further St Cyril gives examples of such deeds, by which he understands the various miracles performed by Christ.
3 According to St Cyril, for those who invariably have the same energy and power, it will also be appropriate to preserve the «unity ofthe species» (той s'i8ouq svwT^Ta) [Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1863. Col. 453BC]. He also asserts that in those who have the same energy also «the same essence exists» (r^q aur^q unapxsiv Ka! ouaiaq), and they can't be «other-natural» (£Tspoфъ£q) under any circumstances [Ibid. Col.517D].
4 St Cyril quite definitely referred «action» (svspysia) not to Hypostasis (Person), but to nature (essence) [Новиков, 2014. С. 275].
5 St John of Damascus wrote that in Christ the flesh «received the name of an instrument of the Godhead» [Ioannes Damascenus. 1973. S. 150].
energy both directly and through His own body [See: Opuscula theologica et polemica 9. Col. 125B; Disputatio cum Pyrrho. Cols. 344B-345A]. The fact that the humanity of Christ could be used as an instrument did not signify for the supporters of Chalcedon a passive character of this humanity.
Dyoenergist and dyothelite ideas in the Christology of St Cyril
In the writings of St Cyril one can find statements of a completely dyoenergist character:
«He showed a dual energy (sSsi^s SinX^v x^v svspysiav), One and the Same suffering as a human being, acting as God (nàoxwv ^sv wç avGpwnoç, svspywv Ss wç Gsôç о aÙTÔç)...» [Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1864. Col. 937A]
The designation of Christ's action as «dual» fully corresponds to the post-Chalcedonian dyoenergist tradition. Severus and his followers did not use this term in relation to the hypostatic union6.
The reflections of St Cyril on the fallacy of Apollinarius also confirm that the Archbishop of Alexandria was not a monoenergist. According to St Cyril, the core of Apollinarianism lies not only in the fact that the Laodicean denied the existence of a rational human soul in Christ and clothed God the Word only in flesh, «endowed with vital and sensual movement» (x^v ZtoTLK^v ts ка! aiaG^TiK^v... Kv^aiv), but also in that he assimilated to the Only Begotten «the energy of the [human] mind and soul» (t^v voù ка! ^ux^Ç svspysiav) [See: Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Quod unus sit Christus. P. 220].
In the interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer of the Savior, St Cyril touches upon the question of the wills in Christ. He writes that in view of the forthcoming suffering «human nature» (^ àvGpwnou фиа1ф in Christ was exhausted, but because of the union with God the Word, «it rose ... and passed into a courageous mood», not allowing what was pleasing to «its own desires» (toïç LSîolç... GsX^aaiv), but following the Divine purpose [see: Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1872. Vol. 1. P. 487].
Of course, the above statement is too brief to make any generalizations based on it. Nevertheless, it testifies more in favor of the dyothelite rather than monothelite position. It should be noted that St Cyril, firstly, speaks of «own desires», i.e. volitional impulses, of human nature, and, secondly, recognizes its active character. According to St Cyril, it is not the Word that transforms passive humanity, but the human nature itself, united with the Word, rises and demonstrates its courage7.
6 In the controversy with Nestorius, St Cyril, on the contrary, argued that «one and the only Christ is not dual» (oùSè yàp eau SinXoùç о eîç Ka! ^ovoç XpiaTÔç)... [Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1965. P. 38]. Does it follow from this that St Cyril corrected his theological language? Leontius of Byzantium explains that the expressions «dual» (SinXoùç) and «non-dual» (où SinXoùç) in Christology do not exclude one another, since the Lord can be called «dual» from the point of view of natures and «non-dual» from the point of view of hypostasis. Therefore, «One and the Same can be named "one" and "dual", "one" by virtue of the [hypostatic] union, "dual" by virtue of the number of natures» [Leontius Byzantinus. 1865. Col. 1293A]. In the controversy with Nestorius St. Cyril obviously maintains the oneness of the hypostasis.
7 One can compare this quotation from St Cyril with the corresponding statements of Severus from his Homilia 83 [see: Sévère d'Antioche, 1927. P. 415-416] and from «Against the Impious Grammarian» [see: Severus Antiochenus, 1933. Vol. 102. P. 133-134], which also refers to the Gethsemane agony of Christ. Unlike St Cyril, Severus does not reveal any duality in his theological language, all the actions, words and states of Christ, both Divine and human, are predicated directly to God the Word, the own activity of humanity united with Him remains outside the attention of the Monophysite author.
For a better understanding of the relationship between the points of view of St Cyril and Severus on the issue of wills and actions in Christ, it is essential to reveal how the Alexandrian archbishop understood the significance of the human soul of Christ in the work of our salvation.
Severus argued that in Christ there was only «one activity» (^^oj^ns^ ,m hda hy ma'bdanuta; una autem est efficientia), for «only One acts ^ ^n\"xn qgo; haw
d-ma'bed had 'itawhy; qui operatur unus est) and He is God, incarnated without changing and made man perfectly» [see: Severus Antiochenus, 1938. Vol. 112. P. 225; Syriac text see: Vol. 111. P. 289]. The logic of Severus is clear: energy (action) refers to a person (hypostasis), the Actor is one, and He is God incarnate. Therefore, the energy is also one, and he calls this energy «Divine» (0£ia), agreeing to recognize only «the difference... of the deeds proceeding from it» (5l.dфopa... sk raurnq anorsXou^sva), which can be regarded as Divine and human [see: Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum, 1984. P. 332].
It was not Severus alone who upheld this position. Another prominent representative of moderate monophysitism, John Philoponus, taught about the actions of Christ based on the anthropological paradigm. Just as in a human being the active soul controls the inert body, setting in motion the abilities contained in it, so in Christ, John asserts, the humanity receives movement from the Divinity united with it. In Christ the rational soul with all its «rational abilities» was «just an instrument» 'organa'it; ad modum organi) subject to the
«Divine actions» (к^/mW ^^oj^ns^; ma'bdanwata 'alahayata; operationibus divinis) of God the Word. Because of the ultimate «synthesis» (^.boi; sumlaya; compositionis) in the God-man there was only «one action» (^^oj^ns^ hda ma'bdanuta; una operatio), which proceeds «predominantly» (^j^ni; resana'it; principaliter) from the Divinity of the Lord, spreads through a rational soul, united with the Divinity «as an instrument» 'organa'it; ad modum organi) and finds its realization «in the motional ability of the Divine body» (^mW ^^oisji^^^^; b-mettzi'anuta d-fagra 'alahaya; in facultate motiva
divini corporis) [Ioannes Philoponus, 1930. P. 5-6].
Thus, for Severus and Philoponus, the human soul of Christ is not a factor, non-Chalcedonian theologians consider it only as a passive instrument of the Divinity. It appears that St Cyril gives more importance to the human soul of Christ.
Thus, reflecting on the passions of the Savior, St Cyril claims that Christ, even before the passion, was already subject to confusion, «foreseeing the future with His mind». This confusion, according to St Cyril, was «a state of the rational soul inherent in a human being», in which only a person can have the corresponding «idea and awareness» [Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1872. Vol. 2. P. 316-317]. Here, the Archbishop of Alexandria also emphasizes the reasonableness and consciousness of the passions of Christ, because only conscious, and, consequently, free passions could have a redemptive value.
St Cyril also maintained that the passions of Christ were natural, the Son of God wore a flesh that was afraid of death and «by nature ^uaiKwq) turned away from death» [Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1863. Col. 397A]. Commenting on these words, St Pope Agathon wrote that, according to the teachings of St Cyril, as God Christ was not afraid of death and wished to fulfill His Father's will, which is also His (sc. Christ's) will according to Divinity, but as a man He did not want to die, because He had a «natural sense of self-preservation». It means that St Cyril affirms
in Christ «two wills, i.e. Divine and human» [Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum Tertium, 1990. Vol. 2. Pt. 1. P. 68]8.
In conclusion of the review, it is necessary to cite one more fragment of fundamental importance from the works of St Cyril:
«Human nature ... is confused and ... horrified, but His Divine ... power remains invincible ... the idea of death tries to frighten Jesus, and the Divine power ... calms the awakened passion ... transforming into inexpressible boldness what had been suppressed by horror. Thus, in one and the same Christ the Savior that which is inherent in a human being is set in motion in two different and at the same time necessary ways (év aÛTW тф Хрюсф Ka! EwT^pi KSKiv^aGai та àvGpwneia Sia Sûo Ka! àvayKaiouç Tponouç)» [Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 1872. Vol. 2. P. 316].
Severus, in his interpretation of the Gethsemane Prayer, on the contrary, asserts that in reality Christ was not afraid of death, but only seemed to be afraid for the purpose of economy [Sévère d'Antioche. 1975. P. 96-97]. Thus, the above statement of St Cyril can be seen as a straightforward denial of the Severian doctrine. To the Archbishop of Alexandria, human activity in Christ seems not only real, but, more importantly, necessary. Thus, St Cyril recognizes the humanity of the Savior as self-moving and considers it as a full-fledged source of human actions and states9.
Conclusions
Thus, an analysis of the totality of the statements of St Cyril on the question of actions and wills in Christ does not provide grounds for classifying the Archbishop of Alexandria as a monoenergist and monothelite. Although St Cyril does not have a systematically developed doctrine of actions and wills, it is obvious that his Christological thought does not fit into the monoenergist-monothelite scheme. We can note the following fundamental differences between the position of St Cyril and that of Severians on the issue of wills and actions in Christ:
1. St Cyril considers energy as an attribute of nature (essence), and not of hypostasis (person);
2. In St Cyril's works there are unambiguously dyoenergetic and dyothelite expressions that are in principle incompatible with Severianism;
3. St. Cyril does not substantiate the idea that Christ's humanity is the own humanity of God the Word through the assertion of its non-self-movement and passivity. He does not say anywhere that the humanity of Christ was deprived of its natural activity, that it was not the cause of the actions and states of the God-man according to the humanity. As archpriest John Meyendorff noted, the idea that the life of Christ's human nature, although it belongs to God the Word «as His own», nevertheless does not proceed from His Hypostasis, lies at the heart of the controversy of St Cyril against Nestorius [Мейендорф, 1997. С. 250].
Thus, there is every reason to agree with Lars Koen, who notes that St Cyril revealed a clear inclination not only to ideas that later came to be termed dyophysite, but in some of his writings — also to what later came to be called dyothelitism [Koen, 1991. P. 91].
8 St Maximus the Confessor refers to these words of St Cyril to substantiate the dyophelite doctrine [see: Opuscula theologica et polemica 19. Col. 224С].
9 Thus, Severus, who sought to substantiate his monoenergist position with references to the authority of St Cyril, had to resort to correcting the teachings of the Archbishop of Alexandria.
Литература
Карташев А. В. Вселенские соборы. М.: Республика, 1993. — 542 с.
Кожухов С. А. Сравнительный анализ концепции «антропологическая парадигма в текстах свт. Кирилла Александрийского, Иоанна Кесарийского и Севира Антиохийского // Вестник Екатеринбургской духовной семинарии. 2013. № 2 (6). — С. 98-123.
Кожухов С. Концепция сложной ипостаси Иоанна Кесарийского Грамматика и сложной природы Севира Антиохийского как рецепция образа соединения природ во Христе у святого Кирилла Александрийского // Богословский вестник. 2016. Т. 20-21. № 1-2. — С. 147-168.
Мейендорф И. Жизнь и труды святителя Григория Паламы (Введение в изучение) // Subsidia Byzantinorossica. — СПб.: Византинороссика, 1997. T. 2. — XVI + 480 с.
Мейендорф И. Иисус Христос в восточном православном богословии / Пер. свящ. О. Давыденков, Л. А. Успенская. — М.: Изд-во ПСТБИ, 2000. — 318 с.
Новиков В. В. Ветхозаветная экзегеза святителя Кирилла Александрийского как источник его христологии // Труди Кшвсько!' Духовно!" Академп. 2012. № 16. — С. 131-154.
Новиков В. В. Кирилл, свт., архиеп. Александрийский. Христология // Православная энциклопедия. — М., 2014. Т. 34. — С. 273-277.
Селезнев Н. Христология Ассирийской Церкви Востока. — М.: Euroasiatica, 2002. — 200 с.
Селезнев Н. Н. Несторий и Церковь Востока. — М.: Путь, 2005. — 111 с.
Шенборн К. Икона Христа: Богословские основы / Пер. Е. М. Верещагин. — Милан; М.: Христианская Россия, 1999. — 232 с.
Янг Ф. М. От Никеи до Халкидона: Введение в греческую патристическую литературу и ее исторический контекст / Пер. П. Б. Михайлов, А. В. Серегин, М. В. Егорочкин и др. — М.: Изд-во ПСТГУ, 2013. — 620 с.
Bathrellos D. The Byzantine Christ: Person, Nature, and Will in the Christology of Saint Maximus the Confessor. Oxford; NY: Oxford University Press, 2004, XII + 228 p.
Chadwick H. Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy // Journal of Theological Studies. Oxford, 1951. № 2, рр. 145-164.
Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum Tertium / Ed. R. Riedinger. Berlin: De Gruyter, 19901992 (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum; 2). Vol. 2. Pt. 1-2, 513+488 p.
Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum / Ed. R. Riedinger. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984 (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum; 2). Vol. 1. XXVII, 467 p.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. In Ioannis Evangelium // Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis Evangelium / Ed. P. E. Pusey. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872. Vol. 1-3.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Scholia de incarnatione Unigeniti // Acta ^nal^rum Oecumenicorum. 1963R. T. 1. Vol. 5. Pt. 1, рр. 219-231.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Explanatio in Lucae Evangelium // PG, no. 72 (1864), cols. 476A-949C.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus // PG, no. 75 (1863), cols. 10A-656D.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De incarnatione Unigeniti // Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Deux dialogues christologiques / G.-M. de Durand, éd. P.: Éditions du Cerf, 1964 (Sources Chrétiennes; 97), pp. 188-300.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Quod unus sit Christus // Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Deux dialogues christologiques / G. M. de Durand, éd. P., 1964 (Sources Chrétiennes; 97), pp. 302-514.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Adversus anthropomorphitas // PG, no 76 (1859), cols. 1065A-1132B.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Libri V contra Nestorium // Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1960R. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pt. 6, pp. 13-106.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistola 17 ad Nestorium de excommunicatione // Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1965R. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pt. 1, pp. 33-42.
Fairbairn D. Grace and Christology in the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, XVII + 257.
Grillmeier A. Le Christ dans la tradition chrétienne (De l'âge apostolique à Chalcédoine (451)). P.: Les Editions du Cerf, 1973, 625 p.
Harnack A., von. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 3 Bände. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990. T. 2: Die Entwicklung des kirchlischen Dogmas I, XIV + 826 s.
Iohannes Philoponus. Diaetetes seu Arbiter // Opuscula Monophysitica Ioannis Philoponi / Ed. A. Sanda. Beryti: Typographia Catholica, 1930, pp. 35-88.
Ioannes Damascenus. Expositio fidei // Die Schriften des Iohannes von Damaskos. Bd. 2 / Hrsg. B. Kotter. Berlin; NY: Walter de Gruyter, 1973 (Patristische Texte und Studien; 12), LIX + 291 s.
Keating D. A. Divinization in Cyril: The Appropriation of Divine Life // The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria: a critical appreciation / Eds. G. Weinandy; D. A. Keating. NY: T&T Clark, 2000, pp. 149-185.
Khaled A. The Soteriological Grammar of Conciliar Christology // The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review. 2014. Vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 165-188.
Koen L. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Stockholm: Almquist&Wiksell International, 1991 (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Doctrinae Christianae Upsaliensia; 31), V + 149 p.
Leontius Byzantinus. Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos // PG, no. 86. I (1865), cols. 1267B-1396A.
Leontius Hierosalymitanus. Contra Nestorianos // PG, no. 86. I (1865), cols. 1399A-1768B.
Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae. Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Learning; 96.), pp. XVI + 632.
Loon H., van. Cyril of Alexandria // The Wiley Blackwell companion to Patristics / Ed. K. Parry. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015, pp. 170-183.
Liebaert J. La doctrine christologique de saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie avant la querelle nestorienne. Lille: Facultés Catholique, 1951, 253 p.
Maximus Confessor. Disputatio cum Pyrrho // PG, no. 91 (1865), cols. 288A-353B.
Maximus Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica 5. Adversus eos qui dicunt dicendam unam Christi operationem // PG, no. 91 (1865), cols. 64B-65A.
Maximus Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica 8. Ad sanctissimum episcopum dominum Nicandrum, de duabus in Christo operationibus // PG, no. 91 (1865), cols. 89C-112C.
Maximus Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica 9. Ad catholicos per Siciliam constitutos // PG, no. 91 (1865), cols. 112C-132D.
Maximus Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica 19. Solutio alterius absurditatis // PG, no. 91 (1865), cols. 224C-228A.
McGuckin J. A. St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Christological Controversy. Leiden; NY; Köln: Brill, 1994 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae; 23), XIII + 432 p.
McKinion S. A. Words, imagery and the mystery of Christ: a reconstruction of Cyril of Alexandria's christology. Leiden; Boston; Cologne: Brill, 2000 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae; 55), XI + 244 p.
Meunier B. Le Christ de Cyrille d'Alexandrie, l'humanité, le salut et la question monophysite. P.: Beauchesne, 1997 (Théologie Historique; 104), 306 p.
Norris R. A. Christological Models in Cyril of Alexandria // Studia Patristica. 1975. Vol. 13, pp. 255-268. O'Keefe J. Impassible Suffering? Divine Passion and Fifth-Century Christology // Theological Studies. 1997. Vol. 58, pp. 38-60.
Raven Ch. E. Apollinarismus: An Essay on the Christology of the Early Church. Cambridge: University Press, 1923, 312 p.
Severus of Antioch. Letter 1. To Oecumenius the count, about properties and operations / Ed., transl. E. W. Brooks // Patrologia Orientalis. P., 1919. T. 12. Fasc. 2, pp. 3-14.
Sévère d'Antioche. Le Philalèthe / Éd., trad. R. Hespel. Louvain: Peeters, 1952 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium; 134), 305 p.
Sévère d'Antioche. Homélie 22 // Patrologia Orientalis. Turnhout, 1975. T. 37. Fasc. 1, pp. 88-113.
Sévère d'Antioche. Homélie 83 // Patrologia Orientalis. P., 1927. Т. 20. Fasc. 2, pp. 399-424.
Severus Antiochenus. Contra impium Grammaticum / Ed., trad. J. Lebon. Louvain: Peeters, 1929-1938 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium; 93, 94, 101, 102, 111, 112).
Siddals R. M. Logic and Christology in Cyril of Alexandria // Journal of Theological Studies. Oxford, 1987. No. 38, pp. 341-367.
Siddals R. M. Oneness and Difference in the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria // Studia Patristica. Leuven, 1989. Vol. 18. 1, pp. 207-211.
Simonetti M. Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo d'Alexandria // Augustianum. R., 1982. Vol. 22, pp. 493-511.
Quasten J. Patrology. Vol. 3: The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature. Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1986, XVII + 605 p.
Weinandy T. G. Cyril and the Mystery of Incarnation // The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria: a critical appreciation / Eds. G. Weinandy; D. A. Keating. NY: T&T Clark, 2000, pp. 23-54.
Welch J. L. Christology and Eucharist in the early thought of Cyril of Alexandria. San Francisco: Catholic Scholars Press, 1994, 182 p.
Werner M. The Formation of Christian Dogma: an Historical Study of its Problem. L.: Adam&Charles Black, 1957, XVI + 352 p.
References
Bathrellos D. The Byzantine Christ: Person, Nature, and Will in the Christology of Saint Maximus the Confessor. Oxford; NY: Oxford University Press, 2004, XII + 228 p.
Chadwick H. Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy. Journal of Theological Studies. Oxford, 1951, no. 2, рр. 145-164.
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. In Ioannis Evangelium [In the Gospel of John]. Pusey P. E., ed. Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in Joannis evangelium [Our St father Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, in the Gospel of John]. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872, vol. 1-3. (In Greek)
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Scholia de incarnatione Unigeniti [Scholia on the incarnation of the only Begotten]. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum [Proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils]. T. 1. Vol. 5. Pt. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963R, рр. 219-231. (In Greek)
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Explanatio in Lucae Evangelium [Commentary on the Gospel of Luke]. Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca, no. 72 (1864), cols. 476A-949C. (In Greek)
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus [The Treasure]. In: Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca, no. 75 (1863), cols. 10A-656D. (In Greek)
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De incarnatione Unigeniti [On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten]. Durand, de G.-M., éd. Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Deux dialogues christologiques [Cyril of Alexandria. Two Christological Dialogues]. P.: Éditions du Cerf, 1964 (Sources Chrétiennes; 97), pp. 188-300. (In Greek)
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Quod unus sit Christus [That Christ is one]. Durand, de G.-M., éd. Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Deux dialogues christologiques [Cyril of Alexandria. Two Christological Dialogues]. P.: Éditions du Cerf, 1964 (Sources Chrétiennes; 97), pp. 302-514. (In Greek)
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Adversus anthropomorphitas [Against anthropomorphists]. Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca, no 76 (1859), cols. 1065A-1132B. (In Greek)
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Libri V contra Nestorium [Five Books against Nestorius]. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum [Proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils]. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pt. 6. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1960R, pp. 13-106. (In Greek)
Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistola 17 ad Nestorium de excommunicatione [Epistle 17 to Nestorius concerning excommunication]. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum [Proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils]. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pt. 1. 1965R, pp. 33-42. (In Greek)
Fairbairn D. Grace and Christology in the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, XVII + 257.
Grillmeier A. Le Christ dans la tradition chrétienne (De l'âge apostolique à Chalcédoine (451)) [Christ in Christian Tradition (From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451))]. P.: Les Editions du Cerf, 1973, 625 p. (In French)
Harnack A., von. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte [Textbook of the History of Dogma]. Bd. 2: Die Entwicklung des kirchlischen Dogmas I [The Development of Church Dogma I]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990., XIV + 826 s. (In German)
Iohannes Philoponus. Diaitetes seu Arbiter [Diaites or Arbiter]. In: Sanda A, ed. Opuscula Monophysitica Ioannis Philoponi [Monophysite Pamphlets of John Philoponus]. Beryti: Typographia Catholica, 1930, pp. 35-88. (In Syriac)
Ioannes Damascenus. Expositio fidei [An exposition of Faith]. In: Kotter B., hrsg. Die Schriften des Iohannes von Damaskos [The writings of John of Damaskos]. Bd. 2. Berlin; NY: Walter de Gruyter, 1973 (Patristische Texte und Studien; 12), LIX + 291 s. (In Greek)
Kartashev A.V. Vselenskie Sobory [Ecumenical Councils]. Moscow: Respublika [Republic], 1993. (In Russian)
Keating D. A. Divinization in Cyril: The Appropriation of Divine Life. Weinandy G.; Keating D. A., eds. The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria: a critical appreciation. NY: T&T Clark, 2000, pp. 149-185.
Khaled A. The Soteriological Grammar of Conciliar Christology. The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review, 2014, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 165-188.
Koen L. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Doctrinae Christianae Upsaliensia. Vol. 31. Stockholm: Almquist&Wiksell International, 1991, V + 149 p.
Kozhukhov S. A. Sravnitelnyi analiz kontseptsii "antropologicheskaia paradigma" v tekstakh Sv Kirilla Aleksandriyskogo, Ioanna Kesariyskogo i Sevira Antiokhiyskogo [Comparative analysis of the concept of "anthropological paradigm" in the texts of St. Cyril of Alexandria, John of Caesarea and Severus of Antioch]. Bulletin of the Ekaterinburg Theological Seminary, 2013, no. 2 (6), pp. 98-123. (In Russian)
Kozhukhov S. Kontseptsia slozhnoy ipostasi Ioanna Kesariyskogo Grammatika i slozhnoy prirody Sevira Antiokhiyskogo kak retseptsia obraza soedineniya prirod vo Christe u sviatogo Kirilla Aleksandriyskogo [The concept "composite hypostasis" of John the Grammarian of Caesarea and the concept "composite nature" of Severus of Antioch as a reception of the mode of the union of natures in Christ by St. Cyril of Alexandria]. Theological Herald. 2016, vol. 20-21, no. 1-2, pp. 147-168. (In Russian)
Leontius Byzantinus. Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos [Against the Nestorians and Eutychians]. Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca, no. 86. I (1865), cols. 1267B-1396A. (In Greek)
Leontius Hierosalymitanus. Contra Nestorianos [Against the Nestorians]. Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca, no. 86. I (1865), cols. 1399A-1768B. (In Greek)
Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae. Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Learning; 96.), pp. XVI + 632.
Loon H., van. Cyril of Alexandria. In: Parry K., ed. The Wiley Blackwell companion to Patristics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015, pp. 170-183.
Liebaert J. La doctrine christologique de saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie avant la querelle nestorienne [The Christological doctrine of Saint Cyril of Alexandria before the Nestorian quarrel]. Lille: Facultés Catholique, 1951, 253 p.
Maximus Confessor. Disputatio cum Pyrrho [Disputation with Pyrrhus]. Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca, no. 91 (1865), cols. 288A-353B. (In Greek)
Maximus Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica 5. Adversus eos qui dicunt dicendam unam Christi operationem [Theological and polemical pamphlets 5. Against those who say that one operation of Christ is to be said] In: Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca, no. 91 (1865), cols. 64B-65A. (In Greek)
Maximus Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica 8. Ad sanctissimum episcopum dominum Nicandrum, de duabus in Christo operationibus [Theological and polemical pamphlets 8. To the most holy bishop, Lord Nicandar, concerning two operations in Christ]. Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca, no. 91 (1865), cols. 89C-112C. (In Greek)
Maximus Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica 9. Ad catholicos per Siciliam constitutos [Theological and polemical pamphlets 9. To the Catholics established in Sicily]. Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca, no. 91 (1865), cols. 112C-132D. (In Greek)
Maximus Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica 19. Solutio alterius absurditatis [Theological and polemical pamphlets 19. The solution of another absurdity]. Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca, no. 91 (1865), cols. 224C-228A. (In Greek)
McGuckin J. A. St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Christological Controversy. Leiden; NY; Köln: Brill, 1994 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae; 23), XIII + 432 p.
McKinion S. A. Words, imagery and the mystery of Christ: a reconstruction of Cyril of Alexandria's christology. Leiden; Boston; Cologne: Brill, 2000 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae; 55), XI + 244 p.
Meunier B. Le Christ de Cyrille d'Alexandrie, l'humanité, le salut et la question monophysite [The Christ of Cyril of Alexandria, humanity, salvation and the Monophysite question]. P.: Beauchesne, 1997 (Théologie Historique; 104), 306 p. (In French)
Meyendorff I., protopres. Zhizn' i trudy sviatitelia Grigoriia Palamy (Vvedenie v izuchenie) [The life and works of St. Gregory Palamas (Introduction to the Study)]. St. Petersburg: Byzantinorossika, 1997. T. 2. (In Russian)
Meyendorff I., protopres. Iisus Khristos v vostochnom pravoslavnom bogoslovii [Jesus Christ in the Eastern Orthodox theology]. Moscow: PSTBI Publishing House, 2000. (In Russian) Norris R. A. Christological Models in Cyril of Alexandria. Studia Patristica. 1975. Vol. 13, pp. 255-268. Novikov V. V. Vetchozavetnaya egzegeza sviatitelia Kirilla Alexandriyskogo kak istochnik ego christologii [Old Testament exegesis of St. Cyril of Alexandria as a source of his Christology]. Works of the Kiev Theological Academy. 2012. Issue. 16, pp. 131-154. (In Russian)
Novikov V. V. Kirill, svt., archiep. Aleksandriyskiy. Christologiia [Cyril, St., Archbishop of Alexandria. Christology]. Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopedia]. Moscow, 2014. T. 34, pp. 273-277. (In Russian)
O'Keefe J. Impassible Suffering? Divine Passion and Fifth-Century Christology. In: Theological Studies. 1997. Vol. 58, pp. 38-60.
Raven Ch. E. Apollinarismus: An Essay on the Christology of the Early Church. Cambridge: University Press, 1923, 312 p.
Riedinger E., ed. Concilium Universale Constantinopolitanum Tertium [The Third Universal Council of Constantinople]. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum [Proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils]. Series II. Vol. 2. Pt. 1-2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990-1992, 513+488 p.
Riedinger E., ed. Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum [Lateran Council a. 649 celebrated]. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum [Proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils]. Series II. Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984. Vol. 1. XXVII + 467 p.
Schönborn K. Ikona Christa: Bogoslovskie osnovy [Icon of Christ: Theological foundations]. Milan; Moscow: Christianskaya Rossiia [Christian Russia], 1999. (In Russian)
Seleznev N. Christologiia Assiriyskoy Tserkvi Voskoka [Christology of the Assyrian Church of the East]. Moscow: Euroasiatica, 2002. (In Russian)
Seleznev N.N. Nestoriy i Tserkov' Vostoka [Nestorius and the Church of the East] Moscow: Put' [Way], 2005. (In Russian)
Severus of Antioch. Letter 1. To Oecumenius the count, about properties and operations. Patrologia Orientalis. P., 1919. T. 12. Fasc. 2, pp. 3-14. (In Syriac; English trans.)
Sévère d'Antioche. Le Philalèthe [The Philalethes]. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Vol. 134. Louvain: Peeters, 1952, pp. 305. (French trans.)
Sévère d'Antioche. Homélie 22 [Homily 22]. In: Patrologia Orientalis. Turnhout, 1975. T. 37. Fasc. 1, pp. 88-113. (In Syriac)
Sévère d'Antioche. Homélie 83 [Homily 83]. Patrologia Orientalis. P., 1927. Т. 20. Fasc. 2, pp. 399-424. (In Syriac)
Severus Antiochenus. Contra impium Grammaticum [Against the impious Grammarian]. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Vol. 93-94, 101-102, 111-112. Louvain: Peeters, 1929-1938. (In Syriac; Latin trans.)
Siddals R. M. Logic and Christology in Cyril of Alexandria. Journal of Theological Studies. Oxford, 1987. No. 38, pp. 341-367.
Siddals R. M. Oneness and Difference in the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Studia Patristica. Leuven, 1989. Vol. 18. 1, pp. 207-211.
Simonetti M. Alcune osservazioni sul monofisismo di Cirillo d'Alexandria [Some observations on the monophysitism of Cyril of Alexandria]. Augustianum. R., 1982. Vol. 22, pp. 493-511. (In Italian)
Quasten J. Patrology. Vol. 3: The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature. Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1986, XVII + 605 p.
Weinandy T. G. Cyril and the Mystery of Incarnation. In: Weinandy G., Keating D. A., eds. The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria: a critical appreciation. NY: T&T Clark, 2000, pp. 23-54.
Welch J. L. Christology and Eucharist in the early thought of Cyril of Alexandria. San Francisco: Catholic Scholars Press, 1994, 182 p.
Werner M. The Formation of Christian Dogma: an Historical Study of its Problem. L.: Adam&Charles Black, 1957, XVI + 352 p.
Young F. M. Ot Nikei do Chalkidona: Vvedenie v grecheskuiu patristicheskuiu literaturu i eyo istoricheskiy kontekst [From Nicaea to Chalcedon: Introduction to Greek patristic literature and its historical context]. Moscow: PSTGU Publishing House, 2013. (In Russian)
