THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON —
I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS — The Council of Chalcedon (Fourth Ecumenical Council, 8 Oct
19 Nov. 451) was summoned to repair the scandal of the Second Council of Ephesus (Aug. 449), which Pope St LEO I had termed the “Latrocinium.”The synod, presided over by Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, had rehabilitated Eutyches, condemned as a heretic by the Synod of Constantinople in 448, and had anathematized anyone who asserted two natures (δύο φύσεις) in Jesus Christ after the union. Dioscorus had sought to impose monophysite terminology throughout the Church, excluding all other language, thereby risking the most serious errors regarding the mystery of the Incarnation: the ecchinianism (v. EFESO, LATROCINIO DI; EUTYCHES). Through deceit and violence he had secured the votes of nearly all the Eastern bishops present and had indirectly condemned not only the Easterners of the Patriarchate of Antioch but even Pope St Leo himself, whose Letter to Flavian he had refused even to read.
When St Leo learned what had occurred, he annulled the decisions of the synod and repeatedly urged Emperor Theodosius II to summon a new ecumenical council in Italy, where the appeals of Flavian and the other Eastern bishops unjustly deposed by Dioscorus might be examined.
Despite the intervention of his Western colleague Valentinian III, the Emperor refused and enforced the synod’s decrees. An unforeseen event soon transformed the situation entirely. On 28 July 450, Theodosius II died in a riding accident; as he had no heir, his sister Pulcheria assumed power and crowned the aged senator Marcian, whom she married yet kept as a virgin.
The new sovereigns proved favourable to orthodoxy and justice. Marcian approved the plan for a new council on condition that it meet in the East rather than in Italy. The Pope soon received excellent news from the East. Not only had the new Archbishop of Constantinople, Anatolius—who had succeeded the late Flavian, who had died shortly after the Latrocinium of Ephesus—subscribed to the Letter (or Tome) to Flavian, but Maximus of Antioch was zealously persuading his suffragans to do the same.
The bishops deposed by Dioscorus were recalled from exile, and Eutyches was compelled to leave his monastery. Throughout the East, the authors of the “Latrocinium of Ephesus” signalled their repentance and submission. Faced with this unexpected turn, Leo saw no immediate need for a new council and preferred to postpone it until the Western bishops, then threatened by the Huns under Attila, could attend. Yet Emperor Marcian was eager for the Council and wished the Christological question resolved without delay and definitively. Therefore, without consulting the Pope or awaiting his latest letters, dated at least from June, he summoned the Council as early as 17 May 451.
The bishops were to assemble at Nicaea on 1 September 451. The Pope bowed to the accomplished fact and accepted the Council on condition that it be presided over by one of his legates, Bishop Paschasinus (accompanied by Bishops Lucentius, Julian of Cos, and the priests Basil and Boniface), and that the dogmatic question, already settled by the Letter to Flavian, should not be reopened. On the appointed day more than 500 bishops were gathered at Nicaea. The Council did not open immediately, however, because the Emperor, who wished to attend the opening, was engaged in fighting the barbarians. In the meantime the Fathers attended to procedural matters.
Preliminary matters. It was then, as seems likely, that Dioscorus, whose presence at the Council was by no means auspicious, attempted a coup de théâtre. He sought to have Pope St Leo excommunicated, but he rallied only a few Egyptians around him (cf. Epist. Concilii ad imperatorem Marcianum, in Mansi, VI, 1097). This attempt only worsened his situation. Seeing that the bishops were weary of waiting, Marcian deemed it opportune to transfer the Council to Ch., near the capital.
II. THE SESSIONS
The Council of Nicaea thus became that of Ch. It was the most important ecumenical Council of the patristic period, both for the number of bishops who took part and for the doctrinal and disciplinary decisions that were made. The acts, almost in their entirety, are preserved in various collections. The bishops present, all Easterners except the papal legates and two fugitive Africans, Aurelius of Hadrumetum and Rusticianus, numbered at least 500, and if we include the procurators of absent bishops, we may, as historians commonly do, raise the number to 630. Not all, however, remained until the end. Indeed, the Greek acts, which record 452 signatures for the dogmatic decree on the Incarnation, promulgated at the 6th session (25 Oct.), record only 185 for the final session (10 Nov.) in which the 28th canon was approved.Historians also differ regarding the number and division of the sessions. Some count 15, others 16. The Greek acts give 17. The Ballerini brothers, editors of the works of St Leo, after careful investigation, calculate 21 sessions spread over 14 days. These discrepancies are of little importance since the major collections are substantially the same. All sessions took place in the basilica of St Euphemia the Martyr in Ch. The first was held on 8 Oct. 451. The emperor was unable to attend but was represented by an imposing board of 19 commissioners, who directed the discussions without, however, taking part in the voting. The Roman legates had precedence among the bishops except for Julian of Cos. From the very beginning of the session they sought to expel Dioscorus, but the imperial commissioners made it clear to them that a proper trial was necessary. The reading of the many documents that formed the dossier of the Robber Synod of Ephesus was thus begun. The reading was interrupted by various incidents that revealed the heated spirit of the assembly. Flavian was immediately acknowledged as orthodox; the deposition of Dioscorus was postponed to the 3rd session (13 Oct.), at which the imperial commissioners were not present; the principal accomplices of Dioscorus were dealt with, among whom were Juvenal of Jerusalem and Thalassius of Caesarea.
From the 2nd session (10 Oct.) onwards, the dogmatic question was broached. The Roman legates and the majority of the Council did not wish for new definitions of faith, considering the documents already canonised by previous councils and Leo’s Tome sufficient for the dogmatic exposition. The imperial commissioners, however, insisted on a new formula. In the end their wishes were granted. A first formula, drawn up by a private commission presided over by Anatolius of Constantinople, was examined at the 5th session (22 Oct.). It received the approval of the majority, but the Roman legates and the Antiochian Orientals rejected it as ambiguous. Another had therefore to be drawn up with the participation of the legates, or else the Council would be transferred to the West. Such, indeed, had been the emperor’s decision, for he was determined to obtain a sufficiently clear definition to eliminate all subterfuge. From the collaboration of the representatives of the two terminologies—the Roman, the Eastern and Cyrillian—there emerged the desired formula, which was approved by all and solemnly promulgated at the 6th session (25 Oct.), at which the emperor attended and addressed the Fathers in Latin. At the foot of the celebrated document more than 600 signatures of present bishops or delegates were appended.
After this act, the principal task of the Council, for which the Pope had sent his legates, was completed. The sessions that followed until 10 Nov. inclusive were devoted to regulating matters concerning the Orientals. A collection of 27 canons was probably drawn up at the 7th session; others say at the 15th. The famous 28th canon on the privileges of the see of Constantinople did not appear until 31 Oct. (15th or 16th session, at which neither the imperial commissioners nor the Roman legates were present). The discussions on this canon, condemned by the legates, were the subject of the final session (10 Nov.).
Before dispersing, the bishops still present sent the Pope a letter of homage, calling him their father, their head and their teacher, and requesting in particular the confirmation of the 28th canon, which the legates had rejected. In a series of sittings between 25 and 30 Oct., the case of the victims of Dioscorus was settled: Ida of Edessa, Theodore of Cyrrhus, John of Antioch, etc. At the session of 26 Oct., Juvenal of Jerusalem, much compromised in the Robber Synod of Ephesus, was fortunate enough to obtain the autonomy of his see from the patriarchate of Antioch and jurisdiction over the three Palestines with their respective metropolitans: Caesarea, Scythopolis and Petra, thus giving rise in this way to a new patriarchate.
III. MAIN DECISIONS
The most important decision of the Council was certainly the dogmatic definition on the mystery of the Incarnation, whose formulation was so laborious and which the imperial commissioners finally wrested from the majority of the bishops.The principal passage is as follows: «The Council anathematises those who have invented the story that before the union there were two natures (δύο φύσεις) in the Lord, but that after the union there is only one. With the Fathers, we all with one accord teach one and the same Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect even in His humanity; the same truly God and truly man, composed of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father in His Godhead, consubstantial with us in His humanity; like us in all things save sin; begotten of the Father before all ages as regards His divinity, and the same, in these latter times, for our salvation born of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, as regards His humanity. We acknowledge one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, in two natures (ἐν δύο φύσεσι) united without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; for the difference of the natures is by no means taken away by their union; on the contrary, the property of each is preserved, and they come together in one person and one hypostasis. For we do not confess a Son divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, who is the God-Word, the Lord Jesus Christ» (Mansi, VII, 116).
What is most important in this formula is the clear distinction made between the word φύσις and the word ὑπόστασις, as applied to the mystery of the Incarnation. The term φύσις denotes concrete and individual nature, considered in itself as essence, οὐσία, independently of its supposit or person. The term ὑπόστασις is taken as synonymous with πρόσωπον, but a concrete, physical πρόσωπον, and means the person, the subject of attribution, the I. This I, this hypostasis, this person is identified with the I, the hypostasis, the person of God-the-Word, the Only-begotten Son of the Father, begotten of Him before all ages, made perfect man for us in time. In this way there is clearly affirmed, against the heresy of Nestorius, the intimate unity of Christ, God-Man.
With this terminology, the formula: two *gòses* before the union; a single *gòses* after the union, becomes unsustainable and inconceivable. St. Cyril, by saying, after Pseudo-Athanasius: "one incarnate *gòses* of the Word of God," gave to the word *gòses* the sense of a concrete subject, i.e., of hypostasis and person. Proclus of Constantinople, in his *Tome to the Armenians*, fortunately substituted, in the Cyrillian formula, the word *gòses* with the term *hypostases*. This manner of expression was precisely consecrated in the definition of Chalcedon. It states that Christ is, subsists in two natures (*èv δύο gòsesin*), and not that He is of two natures (*èv δύο gòsesin*), as Diocletian wished, because this form, which appealed to the majority of the Fathers, and was rejected by the legates, was equivocal and tended to revert to the single *gòses* after the union. Impressed by the endless and sad disputes that followed the Council, some historians, without hesitation, say that this definition was a mistake (cf. L. Duchesne, *Histoire ancienne de l'Église*, III, Paris 1910, pp. 457-58). They do not reflect, in fact, that if the Council had been less explicit and had contented itself with approving the *Tome* of Leo, the Eutychians would certainly have been refuted, but the faithful followers of Nestorius would have easily sheltered themselves behind the papal document, and the Egyptian disciples of Cyril, in their exclusivist manner, would also have remained dissatisfied. If they had adhered to the formula: *ex duabus naturis* (*èv δύο gòsesin*), the Cyrillians would probably have been satisfied; but such a formula could have covered all the Monophysites, even the most extreme, and without doubt would have provoked dissatisfaction among the Antiochenes, thus displeasing the Westerners as well. One must also consider that, in mentally distinguishing *gòses* from *hypostases* or *prosopon* in the theology of the Incarnation, the Council established the uniformity of terminology concerning the two great mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation: in God, one nature and three hypostases or persons; in Jesus Christ, two natures and one hypostasis or person.
In summary, the history of the Council of Chalcedon gives great prominence to the Roman primacy of divine right. There are many passages in the acts of the Council in which this primacy is clearly asserted both by the Fathers and by the Roman legates and by Pope St. Leo. But in the famous canon 28, which the Pope refused to approve, there is a passage which, taken literally, utterly destroys this primacy. For there it is said: "Rightly have the Fathers attributed the primacy (*ta presbeia*) to the see of ancient Rome, because this city was the capital of the empire" (Mansi, VII, 369).
On the meaning and importance of this gross and indeed official falsehood, invented for the exigencies of the cause, V. COSTANTINOPOLI, PATRIARCATO di. The same Fathers who approved this text wrote to Pope Leo a humble entreaty asking him to approve and confirm their decree by his authority, hailing him as the interpreter of the voice of Peter, "the head of which they are the members," the father of which they are the children: *PL* 54, 951 sqq. Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, then one of the first involved in this matter, declared to the Pope: "The see of Constantinople has for its father your Apostolic See" (*Epist. ad Leonem Papam*, 4: *PL* 54, 984 A).
Moreover, all the Fathers, at the third session, explicitly approved the sentence of the deposition of Dioscorus, pronounced by the legate Pascasinus, in which the divine origin of the Roman primacy is openly indicated: "Leo, through us and this holy Council, in union with the blessed Apostle Peter, who is the cornerstone of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has deprived him of the episcopate and every priestly dignity" (Mansi, VI, 1047). The dissenting Easterners who even today appeal to the 28th canon to deny the divine origin of the primacy of Rome, ignore this historical context and cling to the letter of the text. One understands why St. Leo refused to approve it and wrote to Emperor Marcian: "Different is the nature of human things and that of divine things; and no building will stand without the stone which the Lord has laid" (*Epist. 104 ad Marcianum*, 3: *PL* 54, 993-95).
The bibliography on the Council of Chalcedon is immense but rather outdated. See that of Hefele-Leclercq, II, pp. 649-51; Fliche-Martin-Frutaz, IV, pp. 208-17. Some recent works are noted: P. Batiffol, *Le Siège Apostolique de s. Damase à s. Léon le Grand*, Paris 1920; id., *Léon I*, in *DTHC*, IX, cols. 216-301 (with bibliography); E. Caspar, *Geschichte des Papsttums*, I, Tübingen 1930, pp. 314 sqq.; J. Harapin, *Primatus Pontificis romani in Concilio chalcidonensi et Ecclesiae dissidentes*, Quaracchi 1933. On the dogmatic definition of the Council, see the histories of dogma, especially that of J. Tixeront, *Histoire des dogmes*, III, Paris 1912, p. 89 sqq.; J. Bois, *Chalcédonie, Concile de*, in *DTHC*, II, cols. 2190-2208; M. Jugie, *Nestorius et le tome de s. Léon. Nestorius et la définition de Chalcédonie*, notes in the work: *Nestorius et la controverse nestorienne*, Paris 1912, pp. 307-12. Martino Jugie.