Nestorianism - Not quite right I'm afraid

[pint_engineer]

CK3 states for Nestorianism: "In teaching that Jesus Christ has two natures, one divine and one human, Nestorianism has been declared as heretical by most Christian faiths"

a) Jesus Christ has two separate natures. This is correct for the vast majority of the doctrines (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, etc). Divine nature and human nature.

b) Nestorianism considers heretical as Nestorios was teaching that Christ was a simple human being as He was born by a human being (ie ONLY human nature in the begining). The Son "touched" the human Christ and then Christ got the Divine nature as well. Thus, Nestorios was basically teaching that there is not a Trinity but: Father, Son, Holly Spirit, Christ.

To keep it absolute simple (as even Nestorios was comfused even by his very own teaching...) I'd rather redifine the CK3 info as: "In teaching that Christ has a single human nature, and obtains His second divine nature through a "contact" between the Son and the human Christ.

c) I believe that Christianity is the faith. The different parts of a Religion are doctrines (Orthodoxy, Cahtolicism, etc).

Thanks!

[Seek and Find]

Excerpt from "The Nestorians, Or, The Lost Tribes" by Asahel Grant, 1841. From Part II, Chapter VI. It is an interesting read from a missionary who journeyed to the area at that time.

"Nestorian is a name disliked by the people thus designated. They rarely apply it to themselves, and they are averse to its application by others, lest, as it seems, they should be thought to participate in the reputed heresy of Nestorius, a bishop of Constantinople, who was excommunicated from the general church A.D. 431. But the reason which they assign for objecting to the use of this name is, that they never derived either their doctrines or their rites from Nestorius. They reverence him for raising his voice against the worship of images, and against the prevalent use of the title Mother of God; which, as they affirm, virtually takes away the humanity of our Saviour, and thus leaves us without a Mediator. But having themselves never applied any other title than Mother of Christ to the Virgin Mary, and their worship having never been polluted with images;* while, at the same time, they have ever held to the human and Divine nature in one person in Christ, they ask, where is the propriety of calling their ancient church after a bishop who lived in a comparatively late day, and with whom they never had any connexion? It is true, they espoused his cause as the cause of an injured man, whom they regarded as a faithful servant of the Lord Jesus, persecuted for righteousness' sake; and on this account the enemies of Nestorius endeavoured to fasten reproach upon them by calling them after his name."

* See Reasearches of Smith and Dwight, vol. ii., p. 202-242

[Kamerad Matto]

This has always annoyed me as well, as CK2 also gets the in-game description for Nestorianism wrong (not to mention how much they botched the in-game description of Miaphysites, Monophysites, and Monothelites, too, in CK2).
Though that's interesting, my understanding of what Nestorianism was that they claimed Christ was actually two distinct persons, one divine person, and one human person, and that the term "Nestorian" is kind of a misnomer, because the actual beliefs of the Nestorians doesn't actually quite line up with what Nestorius himself actually believed/taught, or at least it's not really clear if he really believed or taught it.
Anyway, yeah I was frustrated when I was looking at the religions list after recently getting CK3 to see that they yet again fail to actually describe what Nestorianism is, and give the Chalcedonian definition of Christology for a non-Chalcedonian sect.

[Fighter of the Nightman]

The errors of Nestorianism/Nestorius have more to do with their understanding of the union with natures. They say 2 natures 1 person. We would say 1 person united in a hypostatic union, the 2 distinct natures are united in one person and one substance.

Nestorians treat the human nature being a complete man and the Incarnation being an assumption of the man. So more of a moral or accidentally union.

The phrasing is accurate for a simple description. Especially when you consider the fact they were the ones using the language 2 natures one person.