For more than fifteen centuries, the Oriental Orthodox tradition, today the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Malankara Orthodox Churches, has declined to receive one letter written by a pope of Rome. Was Pope St. Leo the Great's Tome really Nestorius in disguise?
Short answer: No. The Tome confesses that "one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man," and that "the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried." That is the faith of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who in 433 himself accepted language about "a union of two natures." When the Tome was read at the Council of Chalcedon, the bishops acclaimed that "Leo and Cyril taught the same thing," and modern common declarations between the popes and the Oriental Orthodox patriarchs confirm that we confess one Christ. The Tome is orthodox, and the Church that received it is the Catholic Church, founded by Christ on St. Peter.
Key verses on the one Christ in two natures
- "And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:14)
- "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave" (Philippians 2:6–7)
- "Now since the children share in blood and flesh, he likewise shared in them, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14)
- "The Father and I are one" (John 10:30)
- "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28)
- "And Jesus advanced [in] wisdom and age and favor before God and man" (Luke 2:52)
Scripture quotations are from the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE), © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
What the Oriental Orthodox Believe
The Oriental Orthodox are not Eutychians. They confess Christ as perfect God and perfect man and condemn Eutyches as firmly as Catholics do. Fr. Peter Farrington, a priest of the Coptic Orthodox Church, insists that "the Tome was not rejected because of any Eutychianism" and that "At no point was Chalcedon rejected because of any support for a Eutychian Christology" ("The Oriental Orthodox Rejection of Chalcedon").
Their objection runs the other way: that St. Leo divided Christ. Fr. Farrington quotes a passage that has troubled them deeply, in this translation: "For each 'form' does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries." Then he asks:
"What are these 'forms' that are acting separately? How is it that the Word performs some acts and the flesh performs some others? Do not all the acts belong to the Word whose flesh it is?"
He sets this beside the anathema of St. Cyril that "the Word of God suffered in the flesh" (the twelfth of his Twelve Anathemas), and adds that Nestorius "is on record as saying that it was consistent with his Christology." He concludes: "Of course this does not mean that the Tome of Leo was Nestorian," but "it could very easily sound Nestorian, and it certainly did to the anti-Chalcedon followers of St Cyril."
The objection goes back to the fifth century. Dioscorus of Alexandria, deposed at Chalcedon and venerated as a saint in the Oriental Orthodox Churches, is credited with six anathemas against the council. Fr. Farrington reports their substance from the confession of faith of the sixth-century bishop Jacob Baradaeus; one reads: "Chalcedon is anathematised because it has corrupted the patristic doctrine and has received the Tome of Leo." Severus of Antioch, the great theologian of the Syriac Orthodox tradition, was willing to accept "in two natures" "as long as the union of Divinity and humanity in Christ was confessed," yet he judged that Chalcedon did not confess it: the council "would not have defined that the one Christ is in two natures thereby dissolving the union." In 514, "his Synod anathematised Chalcedon and the Tome" (Fr. Moses Samaan, "The Christology of St. Severus of Antioch," lacopts.org).
In short: St. Cyril taught one subject of every act; the Tome seems to give each nature its own acts; so the Tome seemed to reopen the door to Nestorius.
What Catholics Actually Teach
The Catholic Church teaches exactly what Fr. Farrington asks for: all the acts belong to the Word. "Christ's humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God" (CCC 466). Therefore "everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject," and "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity" (CCC 468).
With Chalcedon the Church confesses: "We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures" (CCC 467). The council's own text says He is "not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ" (Definition of Faith).
What Catholics do not teach:
- That the divine nature and the human nature are two "someones." A nature is what Christ is; the Person is who He is, and there is only one Who: the eternal Son.
- That the man Jesus did some things and God the Word did others. The Word does everything, divine things through His divinity, human things through His humanity.
- That the Oriental Orthodox are Eutychians or "monophysites" in the heretical sense. Pope St. Paul VI and Coptic Pope Shenouda III together confessed Christ "perfect God with respect to His divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity" (Common Declaration, 1973; see Is Miaphysitism Heresy?).
It all points to Christ. This dispute is about whether the One who wept at Lazarus's tomb and the One who raised him are the same Jesus, the Lord of glory crucified for us. Catholics and Oriental Orthodox both answer yes with their whole hearts, and the Tome, read on its own terms, says the same.
The Biblical Case
1. One subject: the Word Himself became flesh
St. John does not say the Word joined a man. He says, "And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son" (John 1:14). The same "he" who "was in the form of God" "emptied himself, taking the form of a slave," and "humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:6–8). One subject runs through the whole hymn.
St. Leo builds the Tome on these very texts. The phrase that troubles our Oriental Orthodox brothers, "each form," is St. Paul's own vocabulary: "the form of God" and "the form of a slave." When St. Leo speaks of two "forms," he is speaking Philippians 2.
2. The same Person says opposite things
Jesus says, "The Father and I are one" (John 10:30), and also, "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Both are true of one speaker, in different respects: equal to the Father in His divinity, less in His humanity. St. Leo uses exactly these two verses: "it is not part of the same nature to say, 'I and the Father are one,' and to say, 'the Father is greater than I.'" Earlier in the same chapter he insists: "For it must again and again be repeated that one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man" (Tome 4). Two natures, one "same."
3. He grew, and He is God
"And Jesus advanced [in] wisdom and age and favor before God and man" (Luke 2:52). The eternal Word cannot grow in His divinity; He is infinite. Yet the One who grew is the Word. The one Son undergoes in His humanity what He cannot undergo in His divinity. That is all the Tome means by "what is proper" to each.
4. He shared our flesh in order to die
"Now since the children share in blood and flesh, he likewise shared in them, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). He "had to become like his brothers in every way" (Hebrews 2:17–18). The Son took flesh so that He could die. St. Leo says exactly this: "the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, although it was not actually in His Divinity whereby the Only-begotten is co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father, but in His weak human nature that He suffered these things" (Tome 5). The subject who is crucified is "the Son of God." That is not Nestorius; that is St. Cyril's "the Word of God suffered in the flesh," and St. Paul's "they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Corinthians 2:8).
Objections Answered
(a) "'Each form does what is proper to it' makes the natures two agents."
At its strongest: In the Tome, the Word performs "what appertains to the Word," and "the flesh" carries out what belongs to the flesh. One "sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries." Do not all the acts belong to the Word?
Answer: Read the whole sentence and its neighbors. The forms act "with the co-operation of the other," never apart, and the chapter states its thesis plainly: "For He who is true God is also true man," and "one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man" (Tome 4). St. Leo even says outright that "in the Lord Jesus Christ God and man is one person." His examples have one subject: it is the same Lord who is "moved to tears of pity for a dead friend" and who raises "that same friend to life with a voice of command" (see John 11:35, 43). The forms are the principles by which the one Son acts, not two whos.
And St. Leo did not invent this way of speaking. St. Gregory the Theologian, honored by Copts, Syrians, and Armenians alike, preached in Constantinople (traditionally dated to 380): "He asks where Lazarus was laid, for He was Man; but He raises Lazarus, for He was God" (Oration 29.20). That is the Tome's Lazarus example, seventy years earlier, from a Father the Oriental Orthodox venerate. If one is Nestorian, so is the other.
(b) "St. Cyril taught one incarnate nature. The Tome's two natures contradict him."
At its strongest: St. Cyril, the hero of Ephesus, spoke of "the one nature made flesh of God the Word." Severus held that Chalcedon's "in two natures," without confessing the hypostatic union, was "dissolving the union." St. Cyril is the standard; St. Leo departs from it.
Answer: St. Cyril himself is the best witness against this objection. In 433 he made peace with John of Antioch and accepted the Antiochenes' confession: "We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting... for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord" (Letter to John of Antioch). The same confession goes on: "For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching about the Lord common as pertaining to the one person, and other things they divide as to the two natures, and attribute the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the lowly ones on account of his humanity [to his humanity]." St. Cyril rejoiced that "our churches and yours have the Faith which agrees with the God-inspired Scriptures and the traditions of our holy Fathers."
That is exactly the Tome's method: worthy things (raising Lazarus) attributed by reason of His divinity, lowly things (weeping) by reason of His humanity, all of one Person. St. Cyril's fourth anathema forbids dividing the Gospel sayings "between two persons or subsistences" (Council of Ephesus). It never forbids distinguishing them by two natures, and in 433 he accepted a text that does precisely that. Even in his letter to Nestorius he wrote that "the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union." Chalcedon's "two natures" is the language St. Cyril accepted in 433.
And the Church settled Severus's worry. The Second Council of Constantinople (553) condemned anyone who uses "in two natures" "so as to divide the parties" or to "make of them Persons properly so called," and it also upheld St. Cyril's phrase "the one nature made flesh of God the Word" when understood "as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ" (Anathemas 7–8). The Catholic Church reads Chalcedon through St. Cyril, not against him.
(c) "Nestorius himself approved of the Tome."
At its strongest: Fr. Farrington notes that Nestorius "is on record as saying that it was consistent with his Christology." If the heresiarch liked it, surely something is wrong with it.
Answer: True. But a text's meaning is not settled by who later approved of it. The question is what the Tome actually says, and it says what Nestorius denied: that the Son of God was "crucified and buried," that the "Son of Man" descended from heaven "in consequence of this unity of person" (Tome 5), and that there is "one and the same Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus" (Tome 3). And Chalcedon, which received the Tome, called the Virgin "the Mother of God according to his manhood" (Definition of Faith), the very title Nestorius refused. Nestorius's approval of the Tome does not make it his; it is the Tome that answers him.
(d) "If we already share the same faith in Christ, why should we enter communion with Rome?"
At its strongest: The 1984 Common Declaration says the later schisms "in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith," arising "only because of differences in terminology and culture" (Pope St. John Paul II and Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas). Then what is left to fix?
Answer: The same document answers: "the Holy Eucharist cannot yet be concelebrated by us," because "Such celebration supposes a complete identity of faith such as does not yet exist between us," and both sides committed to "do all in our power to achieve the full visible communion." The 1996 declaration with Catholicos Karekin I likewise seeks "recovery of full communion" (Common Declaration, 1996). Agreement on Christ is the foundation, not the finish line.
And this very dispute shows what is missing. When the Tome was read at Chalcedon, the bishops cried out: "Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril" (Session II). The council's definition received the Tome as "agreeable to the confession of the great Peter." St. Peter's confession, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God," is the confession on which Christ said, "upon this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:16–18). Christ prayed "that they may all be one" (John 17:21), and He gave that unity a visible center in St. Peter and his successors.
The Early Church Agrees
Long before St. Leo, the Fathers spoke of one Christ with two sets of properties, exactly as the Tome does.
- St. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Ephesians 7, early second century, traditionally c. AD 107): "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible — even Jesus Christ our Lord" (newadvent.org).
- St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies 3.16.8, c. AD 180), against those "lowering and dividing the Son of God in many ways": the believer is one "knowing Jesus Christ to be one and the same, to whom the gates of heaven were opened, because of His taking upon Him flesh" (newadvent.org).
- Tertullian (Against Praxeas 27, early third century): "We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person—Jesus, God and Man." He adds that "the property of each nature is so wholly preserved" that the Spirit did "miracles, and mighty deeds, and wonders," while "the Flesh, on the other hand, exhibited the affections which belong to it" (ccel.org). The same pattern, two centuries before St. Leo.
- Pope St. Leo the Great (Tome, Letter 28, AD 449): "Without detriment therefore to the properties of either nature and substance which then came together in one person, majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality" (newadvent.org).
The Tome is not a Latin novelty; it is the common voice of the Fathers, from St. Ignatius to St. Cyril.
Conclusion
The Tome was not Nestorian. It confesses "one and the same" Son, crucified and buried; it speaks of two "forms" because St. Paul did; it divides the Gospel sayings by natures, not persons, as St. Cyril himself accepted in 433 and St. Gregory preached before him. The bishops at Chalcedon acclaimed that "Leo and Cyril taught the same thing" (Session II), and the Second Council of Constantinople (553) confirmed that reading. Our Oriental Orthodox brothers feared for St. Cyril's faith, and we honor that fidelity and their witness under persecution. But the fear was mistaken.
If the faith of St. Leo is the faith of St. Cyril, the division over the Tome has no doctrinal foundation left. What remains is Christ's call to unity, for it is "through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained" (CCC 816).
Come home. The bishops at Chalcedon heard St. Peter speaking through St. Leo, and the Catholic Church still confesses that same one Christ in communion with St. Peter's successor today. You already possess true sacraments and much of the apostolic faith, in "a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (CCC 838). Those gifts draw their power "from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church" and "are in themselves calls to 'Catholic unity'" (CCC 819). The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church's unity, yet your true Eucharist is celebrated apart from the successor of St. Peter, on whom Christ built His Church (Matthew 16:18). We invite you into full communion with St. Peter's successor, the bishop of Rome, in the Catholic Church.
Your next step: Come to Mass or Divine Liturgy at your local Catholic church. You can find one near you at MassTimes.org. When you're ready, call the parish office and ask to speak with the priest about entering full communion with the Catholic Church. Read our guide: How Do I Become Catholic? Not ready yet? Get our free pocket guide below and keep learning.
FAQ
What is the Tome of Leo? A letter (Letter 28) from Pope St. Leo the Great to St. Flavian of Constantinople, dated June 13, 449, against the error of Eutyches. It was read at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and received as agreeing with St. Peter's confession and with St. Cyril. See What Did the Council of Chalcedon Teach About Christ's Two Natures?
Did St. Leo deny that God suffered? No. He wrote that "the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried," explaining that He suffered not in His divinity but "in His weak human nature." The one who suffered is God the Son; the nature in which He suffered is His humanity.
Do Catholics consider the Oriental Orthodox heretics? The Catholic Church has confessed one faith in Christ with the Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian Churches in formal common declarations, and recognizes their true sacraments. Yet those same declarations admit that full communion does not yet exist, and the Catholic Church invites them into it. See Catholic vs. Coptic Orthodox: What Still Divides Us? and Was the Pope's Primacy Recognized in the First Millennium?
Sources
Scripture (NABRE, bible.usccb.org): Matthew 16:16–18; Luke 2:52; John 1:14; John 10:30; John 11:35, 43; John 14:28; John 17:21; 1 Corinthians 2:8; Philippians 2:5–11; Hebrews 2:14–18.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (vatican.va): 466, 467, 468; 816, 819, 838.
Church documents (vatican.va): Pope St. Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III, Common Declaration (May 10, 1973); Pope St. John Paul II and Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Common Declaration (June 23, 1984); Pope St. John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I, Common Declaration (December 13, 1996).
Councils: Council of Ephesus (431): Cyril's Letter to Nestorius and Twelve Anathemas (newadvent.org); Council of Chalcedon (451), Session II and Definition (newadvent.org); Council of Chalcedon, Definition of Faith (NPNF2 vol. 14, ccel.org); Second Council of Constantinople (553), Anathemas 7–8 (newadvent.org).
Church Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians 7; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.16; Tertullian, Against Praxeas 27 (ANF vol. 3, ccel.org); Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 29; Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to John of Antioch (NPNF2 vol. 14, ccel.org); Leo the Great, Letter 28 (Tome).
Oriental Orthodox sources: Fr. Peter Farrington (Coptic Orthodox), "The Oriental Orthodox Rejection of Chalcedon"; "About Father Peter Farrington"; Fr. Moses Samaan, "The Christology of St. Severus of Antioch" (lacopts.org).