/1 St.Cyril used nature to mean hypostasis. In entire controversy, that’s how all parties (party of St.Cyril & party of Nestorius/Theodoret/Ibas) used nature. That was the one thing both parties agreed on & was standard terminology. So how does the union work? I’ll explain.

/2 First it is important to understand what a self-subsistent hypostasis(nature) is. A self-subsistent hypostasis is one that exists on its own right. A soul is an example of a self-subsistent hypostasis.

/3 Second it is important to understand what a non-self-subsistent hypostasis(nature) is. A non-self-subsistence hypostasis is something that doesn’t exist outside of it’s union with the self-subsistence hypostasis. Human body is an example of a non-self-subsistence hypostasis.

/4 St.Cyril used the analogy of the union of body & soul to explain the union of non-self-subsistence hypostasis(body) & the self-subsistence hypostasis(soul).

/5 As St.Cyril explains, Christ is one composite self-subsistent hypostasis(nature). Union of self-subsistent hypostasis(divinity) & non-self-subsistent hypostasis(humanity).

/6 So as the wise doctor St.Cyril explains, the humanity of Christ is a non-self-subsistent hypostasis & doesn’t exist outside of the union with His self-subsistent hypostasis(divinity).

/7 For the Divine Word Himself took on this non-self-subsistence hypostasis(human nature) as His own. This is why we say that this is truly the flesh of the Word.

/8 problem with chalcedonians is they didn’t understand nuances of this controversy with Nestorius/Ibas/Theodoret etc & the nuances of the terminology used by all parties. Which is why they adopted a formula which allowed prosopic union understanding among Theodoret,Ibas etc

/9 5th century chalcedonians were incredibly inexperienced with this issue & absolutely clueless about what this controversy was really about at its core. They should have listened to the people who spent literally decades pre-Chalcedon dealing with this poison.

/10 which is why in the end, Chalcedonians had a major three chapters problem 100 years later for failing to listen to the most experienced expert on this subject at the time of Chalcedon 451 (St.Dioscorus of Alexandria).

/11 if dyophysites listened to St.Dioscorus & continued to hold to descisions of Ephesus 449, they could have avoided the serious three chapters problem in their body. Reason we(OO) didn’t have this 3 chapters issue is because we rejected Chalcedon 451 & held to Ephesus 449.

/12 but instead of following St.Dioscorus, the defender & champion of orthodoxy, they chose to follow the proto-papist Leo the “great.” While all the major sees accepted Ephesus II in 449, it was only the see of Rome at the time that rejected it.

/13 The reason Leo was the only patriach from a major see at the time of 449 to reject Ephesus II was because his tome was not read. Meanwhile rest of the major sees at the time accepted it. When Emperor Theodosius II died later, Leo then worked with new emperor to reverse 449.

/14 The way Leo chose to reverse decisions of 449 was to work with new emperor to have a new council convoked(Chalcedon). OO continued to hold to decisions of Ephesus II & reject Chalcedon. But non-OO followed Leo et al in rejecting Ephesus II 449 & accepting Chalcedon 451

/15 I’m not exaggerating when I call Leo a proto-papist. The original draft in chalcedonians definition was “FROM two natures.” This was a standard formula that was widely accepted. But because of Leo’s pressure,this was changed to “IN two natures”(a favorite of Nestorius et al)

/16 That’s how Diodore of Tarsus & Theodore Mopsuestia(the father of Nestorianism) presented Christ. As “in two natures.” In 5th century, standard meaning of this for all parties involved in the controversy with Nestorius,Theodore,Ibas et al was “In two hypostases.”