Chapter 6: Council of Chalcedon
The intervention of Cyril of Alexandria at Ephesus had been tremendously important in defending the faith against Nestorius. Cyril, however, was a man who spoke and wrote in a terminology that could be misleading; this was the big problem that had disturbed John of Antioch. For one thing, Cyril had often spoken of Christ by referring to the "one incarnate nature of God the Word." To Cyril this indicated especially that there was but "one person" in Christ. Others understood it to mean but "one nature." As a result, Cyril finally set this phrase aside, and accepted the phrase of Antioch: "the union of two natures."
This approach, however, was going to have its effect in what follows. While Cyril wished to affirm the traditional faith of the Church, the phrase he had used could be taken to indicate something entirely different. As long as Cyril was alive, such confusion could be avoided. But, in 444, he died. John of Antioch had already died, as well as Pope Sixtus, who had reigned at the time of the agreement of 433. By the year 448, therefore, a new crisis was upon the Church, new debates, a new heresy, and eventually a new Council.
The ordinary catechism today will tell us that Christ is the second "Person" of the Trinity, and that in addition to His divine "nature" He assumed a human "nature" in order to save mankind. The words "nature" and "person" are technical terms that have come to indicate something very definite in Catholic teaching. Many years elapsed however, before everyone agreed upon what precise word to use to express these ideas. In fact, much of the difficulty in the centuries we are talking about arose from the unsettled terminology. What made matters even worse, men not only used different Greek or Latin words when speaking about "nature" and "person," but they sometimes used the same word to mean both things.
There are instances, for example, when the Greek word generally used for person (hypostasis) was used by some men to mean "nature." The same was true of other important terms. There were no dictionaries to solve the problem; a dictionary has to wait until men agree on the meaning of a certain word. This, of course, invited great confusion, and only with the solemn definitions of the great Councils were the problems finally solved.
When we speak of "nature" we are concerned with exactly what makes something what it is. Nature is the answer to the question "What is it?" Whatever goes to make a human being a human being (and not a flower or animal) is his "nature." In this way we can distinguish between inanimate nature (like rocks), plant nature, animal nature, human nature, angelic nature, and divine nature - right up the scale.
On the other hand, "person" is the answer to the question "Who is it?" We never speak of persons, then, except with the last three classes: men, angels, God. That is why we will not point to a dog and ask "Who is that?" To be a person, one must have a mind. If one cannot think or if one does not at least have the basic power of thinking, he is not a person. A baby, therefore, or a mentally retarded individual is truly a person, since he does have that power, even though the use of it is hindered for some reason. This intellectual power makes it possible for a person to "act" as an intelligent being, and to be responsible for what he does.
In Christ, therefore, there is only one "person" - one who acts, who is responsible for whatever is done either in His divine nature or in His human nature. Thus we can truly say that "God died upon the cross," because it is a person who dies. When the human nature of Christ died it was God in His human nature (although not in His divine nature) who died.
This problem became the subject of special debate after the Council of Ephesus. Nestorius had tended to speak of two "persons" in regard to Christ: a divine and eternal Person, and a human person. Those who opposed him naturally wanted to stress the fact that there is only one person in Christ. Whether He acted as God (in His divine nature) or as man (in His human nature), it was always God, the second Person of the Trinity who did these things.
In stressing this truth, however, some men went to the opposite extreme. Offering the phrase of St. Cyril as their defense, they claimed that there was not only one Person, but also only one nature in Christ. Cyril had spoken of "one incarnate nature (physis) of God the Word." For Cyril, the word physis meant "person"; for these others, however, it meant "nature." The result was a new heresy known as the Monophysite heresy. (It comes from the Greek words, mono, which means "one"; and physis, meaning "nature.") It is also known as Eutychianism, from the name of its chief defendant, Eutyches, abbot of a monastery near Constantinople.
In addition to Eutyches, three other men play a large role in the history of this controversy: Pope Leo the Great; Flavian, the bishop of Constantinople; and the Emperor Marcian. The name of Leo in the middle of the fifth century was to be forever associated with the triumph of the Council of Chalcedon; Flavian was to work in close association with Leo; and Marcian was the one who insisted on the Council.
The abbot Eutyches was greatly upset by Nestorianism, so much so that he saw signs of it everywhere he looked. His reaction was the opposite extreme. In emphasizing the oneness and unity of Christ, he really destroyed the two natures. What resulted from his teaching was something new - a kind of "mixture" of the human and the divine, in which the human was absorbed, as it were, by the divine. Other Monophysites would vary the teaching so that the divinity disappeared in the humanity, or was changed into the human nature. But the end result in every case was only one nature. The example used by Eutyches has become famous: "As a drop of milk let fall into the ocean is quickly absorbed, so also was the human nature of Christ entirely absorbed by the Divinity."
Among those to oppose Eutyches was Theodoret, the bishop of Cyrrhus, his greatest opponent. He was the man who, so to speak, had taken over the leadership of the orthodox believers when Cyril of Alexandria died in 444. He was not the great mind that Cyril had been, but he was a more precise and exact theologian. Thus he was able to clear up some of the misunderstandings caused by the terminology of Cyril.
On the other hand, Eutyches did more than disturb others; he took the initiative and set out to attack them. One of those toward whom he directed his wrath was Eusebius, the bishop of Dorylaeum; Eutyches was certain that this man was teaching heresy. As a rule, Eutyches was quite secure and able to achieve his goals. He was a powerful and influential man; as his patron he had the rather sinister patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscoros. Eusebius, however, was not afraid of Eutyches in any way. He promptly denounced him to Flavian, the bishop of Constantinople.
Flavian may well have feared Eutyches; when he was openly denounced, however, Flavian had to act. He summoned Eutyches to a synod at Constantinople in 448; after several refusals, Eutyches appeared, guarded by the soldiers of the Emperor Theodosius II (who had taken kindly to Eutyches and his followers). Eutyches refused to retract his teaching, and insisted all the more that there are not two natures in Christ, but only one. Flavian's council of bishops at once deposed him from his office as abbot and excommunicated him from the Church.
The scene next shifted to Rome. The Emperor had appealed to Pope Leo on behalf of Eutyches. At the same time, Eutyches' special patron, Dioscoros, went into action at Alexandria, and declared that the sentences passed on Eutyches were null and void. Finding such favor from those in high positions, Eutyches asked the Emperor to convoke a Council and it was agreed; a Council was to open in August of 449 at Ephesus.
Fortunately the Roman Pontiff at the time was truly one of the "great" men of history, as his name indicates. Leo knew how to deal with people, and he was not inexperienced in the problems of diplomacy. Above all, he was a skilled theologian, well able to enter into this controversy. Eventually he had on hand the letter of Eutyches concerning the trial, the recommendation of the Emperor, and a report from Flavian.
Having considered the entire matter, Leo agreed to the Emperor's plan for a Council at Ephesus, and named three delegates to represent him. At the same time he wrote the famous letter to Flavian, expounding the true faith of the Church in regard to Christ; it is known as the "Dogmatic Epistle" of Leo the Great.
A short time later, on August 8, 449, the Council opened at Ephesus with about 130 bishops present. It took place in the same church where Nestorius had been condemned in 431, but it turned out to be a vastly different affair! The wily Dioscoros, patriarch of Alexandria, presided at the command of the Emperor Theodosius. He ignored the papal legates entirely, and refused to permit the reading of the "Epistle" from Leo. The Council then went on to do the exact opposite of what had been intended: it acquitted Eutyches and condemned Flavian, the bishop of Constantinople. Claiming that it was "Nestorian" to affirm two natures in Christ, the bishops once again took up the terminology of Cyril of Alexandria - understood, of course, in the sense held by the Monophysites. Theodoret of Cyrrhus was also deposed; and Flavian was so badly treated that he soon died.
The full report, however, finally reached Rome. Before he died, Flavian had sent an appeal, and Theodoret also wrote to Leo; and when the papal legates returned, Rome understood all. Leo gave to this gathering the name by which it has been known since: the "Robber Synod of Ephesus." In these proceedings, said Leo, we see no Council, but a den of thieves (Latrocinium). He at once declared invalid all that had been done. This was on October 6, 449. With the support of the Emperor, however, it did seem at the time as though the Monophysites had triumphed.
As had happened in the past, death was soon to intervene and change the entire picture. On July 28, 450, Theodosius, the emperor, died. His sister, Pulcheria, married a famous general of the time, Marcian; they became the new rulers. A devout couple, they set about correcting the evils. The orthodox bishops were recalled, Eutyches was sent away, and eventually the various bishops rejected the decrees of the "Robber Synod."
The suggestion was made of calling another Council, this time to proceed properly. Leo advised against it for various reasons. For one thing, matters were improving without open debate, and it seemed best to postpone such a General Council. Moreover, the barbarians were again attacking in the West, and it would be difficult for Western bishops to attend.
Before Leo's letter reached the East, however, steps had been taken by Marcian and Pulcheria to convoke the Council. It was to open at Nicea, this time, on September 1, 451. Again Leo agreed, and appointed other legates to represent him, giving them very precise instructions on what they were to do.
By a change in plans, the site was moved to another city, so that this Council did not become II Nicea. At the beginning of September about 500 bishops had gathered at Nicea, but the Emperor was busy fighting off the Vandals, and could not be there. The bishops continued their preparations, but grew tired of waiting. Marcian then asked them to transfer to a city nearer to Constantinople where he would be in closer touch with the Council, even though he did not attend. The spot chosen was Chalcedon, directly across from Constantinople (or Byzantium, at it was also known at that time).
The fourth General Council opened at Chalcedon on October 8, 451. It was closed officially on November 1 of that year, but its greatest work was accomplished by October 25, when the doctrinal decree was solemnly approved.
Of the first four Councils, Chalcedon stands out as by far the most important and glorious. It was attended by more bishops (about 600) than any of the previous gatherings. They came mostly from the East because of the difficulties with the barbarian invasions in the West. In addition to the papal legates, only two bishops from Africa were in attendance. The Eastern bishops, however, came from all over, and in great numbers.
This Council also stands out because of the profundity of the doctrinal decree, which is a superb summary of all that had been clarified concerning Christ and the Trinity during these first centuries; it also established firmly the terminology that has remained with the Church until this very day. In this way it completed the work of these earlier Councils. It seems, in a way, that the Church had to debate the two extremes of Nestorius and Eutyches in order to set forth in clear and technical language the doctrine received from the Apostles. In doing this, Chalcedon became the touchstone of doctrinal truth in this matter for all succeeding centuries.
The Council opened in the Church of the martyr, St. Euphemia. As with the Council of Ephesus, we possess far more in the way of records of what took place than we have from Nicea and I Constantinople. They have come to us both in Greek and Latin, since both languages had been used. There is still a question of precisely how many sessions took place. Some have said fourteen or fifteen; others twenty-one. The doctrinal problems were settled, however, in the first six.
The papal legates presided, although the representatives of the Emperor were also much in evidence; but they did not interfere with the work of the Council or the authority of the Roman Pontiff. In fact, apart from the doctrine concerning Christ, Chalcedon has left to the world the greatest testimony of an Eastern Council to the primacy of the Pope. At the end of the second session on October 10, after the reading of the "Dogmatic Epistle" of Pope Leo the Great, the bishops cried out: "Behold the faith of the fathers, the faith of the Apostles. . . . Thus through Leo has Peter spoken!"
One of the chief tasks of the Council, obviously, was to give a solution to the disciplinary problems that had arisen. In the course of the sessions, therefore, the acts of the "Robber Synod" were read; Flavian (now dead) and Eusebius (who had first denounced Eutyches) were declared innocent of the charges levied against them at Ephesus. The bishops who had been active at that illicit synod were then deposed, including Dios-coros of Alexandria. Eutyches, so roundly condemned by the Council, was finally sent into exile, along with his patron, Dioscoros; penalties were prescribed for those who insisted on remaining faithful to Eutyches.
Among the bishops whose cases were discussed at Chalcedon, two are especially important because of the role their writings will play in the next century. One was Ibas, the bishop of Edessa; the other, Theodoret of Cyrrhus. These two had been condemned along with Flavian at the "Robber Synod." They were now reinstated by the General Council.
At first the Council had no intention of issuing any new formula of faith. It seemed better to settle the problem of Eutyches, and then simply reaffirm the acceptance of the Creed of Nicea and I Constantinople. In the discussions, however, it appeared that the doctrinal points were not entirely clear in the minds of all the bishops; this suggested the need of a further clarifying statement. Moreover, the representatives of the Emperor were most insistent on this in the interests of rooting out once and for all the confusion that had previously reigned.
As a result, in the fifth session (October 22), it was decided to name a special commission to draw up a statement; the papal legates were among those appointed. What they produced is not so much a new Creed as a commentary on the Catholic faith. The first part of the decree is more a statement of what the Church opposes to the teaching of the heresies of the early centuries; the second half is devoted to a more profound explanation of what this doctrine means.
Whatever hesitancies there had been on the part of some bishops because of certain phrases, all questions were satisfactorily answered in the discussions, thanks especially to the explanations of the papal legates. The bishops had all accepted, the "Dogmatic Epistle" of Leo earlier, and on October 25, they gathered in solemn session, in the presence of the Emperor and Empress, to sign the dogmatic decree formulated by the Council. The task of the Council, as far as doctrine was concerned, was then finished.
The remaining sessions were concerned mostly with other disciplinary questions. On October 31, thirty canons were issued, of which the twenty-eighth was to be most important. In this canon, the Council of Chalcedon repeated what has been said earlier concerning Constantinople, now the glorious city of the Eastern Empire: "As in all things we follow the ordinances of the holy fathers ... so do we decree the same in regard to the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, the New Rome. Rightly have the fathers conceded to the see of Old Rome its privileges on account of its character as the imperial city, and moved by the same considerations the 150 bishops [at I Constantinople] have awarded the like privileges to the most holy see of New Rome, judging with good reason that the city which is honored by the imperial power and the senate, and which enjoys the same privileges as the ancient imperial city of Rome, should also be exalted in its ecclesiastical relations and hold the second place after that."
In this way the city of Constantine loomed ever larger on the ecclesiastical horizon. It marks the furthering of the political interests in the East which would contribute eventually to the great break between the Eastern and the Western churches.
The papal legates protested against this canon, but the Council approved. Pope Leo refused to accept the canon, and wrote a series of letters urging the bishop of Constantinople to be content with things as they were. Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch were all more ancient; they were looked upon as apostolic sees, and this canon violated their rights. It should be enough for Constantinople to know it was the imperial city, without wishing to make its civil position determine its ecclesiastical rank.
At the root of this spirit of ambition there was another danger, not mentioned by Leo, that would come to light soon enough in the history of the Church. Rome is the center of Christianity because of the "chair of Peter," and not because of the civil rank of that city. If Leo had accepted the position that the civil importance of a city determines its rank in the Church, the day might come when Rome, having fallen from its lofty civil position, would be challenged as the center of Christianity. This would be contrary to the entire tradition of the Church, which recognized the authority of Peter in Rome, quite independently of the Emperor. Despite Leo's rejection of the canon, however, the spirit remained, and the difficulties which resulted will concern us in later chapters.
The essential work of Chalcedon was accomplished. The faith of the Church of Christ, true God and true Man, was secured once again against the attacks of heresy. What had been achieved in union with Leo was to appear ever more clearly as the work of the Holy Spirit within His Church. What was done apart from Leo, however, would lead only to further dissension and division within the Christian world.