In classes earlier on in my life I was taught that Nestorius was a false teacher since he taught what some have called the "two board" theory. In this theory, There's two Jesuses *(what's the Plural of Jesus in English?)* glued together. These two Jesuses (one human and the other divine) do not interact with each other. Instead, they take turns. Before I continue on, please let me apologize if that illustration is somewhat crass. I'm just simply handing down what was handed down to me. In Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides , it seems as if the issue was far more that he was very vague in his explanations than that his Christology was heretical. In one of the final quotes (of the earlier cited book) there is this assessment: > “The difference between Nestorius and Cyril is that whereas Nestorius is throughout perfectly consistent, and his theory a brilliant attempt to solve the problem on the basis of a principle which renders a solution impossible, Cyril's greatness lies in the very fact of his inconsistency. He would no more question the antithesis between godhead and manhood than would Nestorius, but where the truth was too much for his system, he preferred the truth to the system, and by his self-contradiction (which Nestorius exposes again and again) left room for further development of Christological doctrine in the future. What, then, will be our judgement on Nestorius? If the above interpretation of his teaching be true, he surely represents a very gallant and ingenious attempt to explain the Incarnation without giving up the belief that in Christ is to be found a complete human person as well as a complete divine person. He could not think of humanity except as existing in a distinct human person; for him, to deny the human ⲩⲡⲟⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ of Christ was to teach an Apollinarian maimed humanity.' Cyril boldly gave up belief in a distinct human ⲩⲡⲟⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ in Christ. Nestorius saw at once that this was inconsistent with the belief of both as to the relation between God and man, but in Cyril's inconsistency we have still a challenge to thought and to the search for a perfect Christology which is not to be found in the barren coherence of Nestorius.” (Appendix IV) My question is this, then: Did Nestorius *deny* key aspects of Christology? Or was he just sloppy in his treatment of it? Or is there some other explanation? As a gentle reminder, I'd appreciate citations from credible sources, especially from primary sources. I do read Greek, Hebrew, some Latin, and some Syriac. So those sources are welcome, in case the sources are only present in the original languages.

From what I gather, Nestorius rejected Mary as the *Theotokos* (which means "God-bearer") and proposed instead that she merely be called, the *Christotokos*; or rather, "Christ-bearer" because since Mary was a human being---God could never be born of a creature. Hence, (with some details omitted) this would necessarily imply that there were two distinct persons in the Incarnate Christ---one human and one divine accidentally united in one body (in violation of the dogma of *homoousios* defined at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 that God the Father and God the Son are of the *same substance*). It is not clear whether or not Nestorius explicitly taught that there exists two natures in Christ, but his doctrine necessarily leads to that conclusion. Hence, with this heresy, it could neither be said that *God* was born, nor that *He* was crucified, nor that *He* died---and therefore, neither that *He* rose from the dead. And so, as the Holy Spirit tells us in 1 Cor. 15:17: *if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.* The First Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorius' teachings as heretical and deposed him from his See (Nestorius was the patriarch of Constantinople at the time.) Was Nestorius ever formally excommunicated by the Catholic Church? I have now noticed that this question seems to be somewhat connected with the one posed here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96605/proof-that-cyril-of-alexandria-is-a-saint-in-the-roman-catholic-church , for *Catholic Encyclopedia* in the entry for [Pope St. Celestine I](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03477c.htm) says (regarding St. Cyril of Alexandria): > Cyril having found Nestorius openly professing his heresy sent a full account to Celestine, who in a Roman synod (430), having solemnly condemned the errors of Nestorius, now ordered Cyril in his name to proceed against Nestorius, who was to be excommunicated and deposed unless within ten days he should have made in writing a solemn retractation of his errors. In letters written the same day to Nestorius, to the clergy and people of Constantinople, and to John of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Rufus of Thessalonica, and Flavian of Philippi, Celestine announces the sentence passed upon Nestorius and the commission given to Cyril to execute it. At the same time he restored all who had been excommunicated or deprived by Nestorius. Cyril forwarded the papal sentence and his own anathema to Nestorius. Nevertheless, it is not clear to me whether or not Nestorius had been officially excommunicated.

On pg. 13 of the c. 1930 booklet, "Ephesus and Its Great Council," by T. A. Johnston, is found the following (excerpt from a quote by the said Ecumenical Council on the condemnation of Nestorius): > ...The Lord Jesus Christ whom he blasphemed decides by this holy Council that Nestorius is deprived of his episcopal dignity and of sacerdotal communion. I interpret this as the Council deprived Nestorius of his archbishopric in Constantinople; but, I am unclear as to what "sacerdotal communion" means. Does this mean that Nestorius is forbidden to receive Holy Communion, which certainly would imply that he was excommunicated? Does it mean that he was stripped of his priestly dignity, i.e., laicized? I don't ever recall having seen this term elsewhere.

In a sense, related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96803/what-is-the-controversy-that-is-leading-the-syro-malabar-catholics-into-schism See [Wikipedia: Nestorius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorius) and observe the churches that venerate Nestorius. How is it that Nestorius is venerated (presumably as a Saint) in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church when the Catholic Church had formally condemned Nestorius as a heretic at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in the fifth century? Is this possible?? Could there be a mistake here?

I'd never seen this before today when I was trying to answer a question on the [natures of God](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6290/relationships-between-god-the-father-mary-and-the-two-natures-of-jesus-christ) , but [St. Cyril's 12 Anathemas against Nestorius](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm) is pretty interesting, and as a piece of literature, I think it's pretty unique. This is from the first of the Anathemas: > If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, "The Word was made flesh"] let him be anathema. > > Nestorius: If anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with us, that is, that he has united himself to a like nature with ours, which he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it; and if anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Word has changed himself into the flesh, which he only assumed in order to make his Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be anathema. Is the first part St. Cyril and the second part Nestorius himself? Or is the whole thing St. Cyril and the part that starts with Nestorius: just St. Cyril writing what he believe are the problems with Nestorius's theology?