A Nestorian Redux?

This was, then, the atmosphere in which the Council of Chalcedon met.  A sensitive world, indeed, where terms and formulas were more than terms and formulas as we take them today.

The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, by Karekin Sarkissian

The Council accepted and affirmed the condemnation of Nestorius, who, along with Eutyches, stood at two extremes anathematized by the Council.  The Council attempted to find some synthesis, a position that was neither extreme. 

But sometimes the attempt is one thing, and the achievement another thing.  And, it seems to us, this is true of the Council of Chalcedon.

The burning issue at the time of the Council was Nestorianism.  To explain in any meaningful way this doctrine, deemed heretical, is beyond my scope, and, frankly, beyond my ability.  See the opening quote at the beginning of this post for my reasons as to why this is so.

The key timeframe is between Ephesus at 431 and Chalcedon at 451.  At Ephesus, the Nicene Creed was confirmed, and the teachings of Nestorius condemned. 

The struggle between the Orthodox and the Nestorians – in other words, between the Alexandrians and Antiochenes – was still going on.

In the east of the empire were these two great theological centers, Alexandria and Antioch.  They held to two different Christological views, with Alexandria closely aligned with Cyril and Antioch closely aligned with Nestorius.  The third Council of Ephesus settled the matter...but it didn’t, as disagreement and controversy and nuance and misunderstanding continued.  Keep in mind, we are talking about differences in prepositions, very nuanced Greek terms, etc.

Nestorius was exiled to the desert as an outcome of Ephesus, but his teaching did not disappear with him.  The students of the Antiochene School continued in his thought.  In fact, they deeply resented his condemnation – it would seem treason to them to accept it.

In 433, Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch produced the Reunion Act – an attempt at some form of reconciling the decisions at Ephesus with and between these two schools.  Both Cyril and John felt this was necessary for the peace of the Church.  But others in Antioch disagreed with the Act, in fact, it was essentially disregarded.

As an example of the animosity, upon Cyril’s death in 440, Theodoret of Cyrus would write:

“At last with a final struggle the villain has passed away…. the Governor of our souls has lopped him off like a canker… His departure delights the survivors, but possibly disheartens the dead…they may send him back to us.”

They would not abandon their doctrine so easily.  Further east, in the Syrian regions of the empire, the Antiochene doctrine was gaining considerable ground.  Eventually, the Nestorian doctrine would reach Persia, and become the predominant doctrine of the Persian Empire; it was accepted and proclaimed there as the official confession of faith.

As an aside…how much of the reason behind this acceptance and proclamation was driven by political considerations as opposed to doctrinal considerations.  The Byzantines said no to Nestorianism.  How can we, the Persians, best separate our culture and traditions from theirs – a mark of distinction critical to empire?  To ask the question may just be the best means by which to answer it.

Returning to Sarkissian: it was in this atmosphere that the Council of Chalcedon was held.  There really was nothing settled by Ephesus.  And, as noted, the condemnation of Nestorius was reaffirmed and upheld.  But what did this mean in practice?  What was the on-the-ground result of this decision?  

Nestorius wasn’t the only teacher of what we know as Nestorianism.  He was merely the one who brought this doctrine into open conflict with Alexandrian Christology.  There were other teachers.

It was possible, therefore, to stand by the doctrine known as Nestorianism or, to use other terms, separatist or dualistic Christology, without being necessarily a follower of Nestorius in the strict sense of the word.

In this way, the Antiochenes could support the condemnation of Nestorius at Chalcedon while holding on to the Christology – disassociate Nestorianism from Nestorius.  There were other people, even with higher authority than Nestorius, who could shelter the doctrine, for example, Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa. 

…in the first session of the Council, Theodoret of Cyrus was admitted to the meeting.  This aroused vehement protests from among the bishops of Egypt, Palestine, and Illyricum, the supporters of Dioscorus.

Theodoret was well-known for his anti-Cyrilline writings, and was the highest authority on the Antiochene side.  This led to his deposition from the episcopal see of Cyrus in the Second Council of Ephesus in 449. 

Some background on this Council: it is accepted by the non-Chalcedonian Churches; it was rejected at Chalcedon.  This despite it being called by the emperor at the time, Theodosius II, as was common.  It was named the Robber Council by Pope Leo.  In other words, at Chalcedon, the decisions from this council two years earlier were ignored – hence the protests by several bishops.

Chalcedon did require of Theodoret a formal anathema of Nestorius, yet this did not come up until the eighth session.  In the meantime, he participated in all deliberations.  After much pressure, Theodoret pronounced the anathema of Nestorius, and at the same time declared his adherence to the Tome of Leo.  Ibas of Edessa was likewise rehabilitated at Chalcedon – same background of being deposed at the Second Council of Ephesus, same welcome at Chalcedon. 

As Sarkissian has developed the background, separating Nestorius from the doctrines that bear his name was necessary, and that was the path taken by those who held to the doctrines.

Consider this: one of the key advocates of Nestorianism, Theodoret, declares as sound Christology the Tome of Leo.  Is this something so easily passed over?  Is it any wonder that this gave several bishops pause? 

In any case, the Council concluded, but the issues were not so easily settled.  Debates continued long after the Council ended, sheer polemics in many cases.  There was a continuous struggle between the two sides, with increasing strength on the anti-Chalcedonian side over the Chalcedonian side. 

Nor was [the debate] confined to Constantinople; it spread over the entire Empire, from Constantinople to Edessa and eastwards, passing through Anatolia, and from Antioch through Palestine down to Egypt.  It soon became a crucial problem, in fact the problem of the time.

Nothing of uniting the empire – the divisions remained and were growing more pronounced.  These divisions occupied the next six emperors, a period spanning over 100 years.  Many of these emperors favored the anti-Chalcedonian side.  Both internal and external affairs were impacted, weakening the Empire; various invasions and conquests by the Persians and Arabs in the subsequent sixth and seventh centuries give witness to the political impact.

Conclusion

“In large districts,” says Wigram, “the Council was rejected at once, and in none, save only Rome, was there any enthusiasm for its doctrine.” … [The anti-Chalcedonians] “were the winning party in the Church for a full generation after 451.”

To make clear the extent of confusion and controversy: the Second Council of Constantinople, held in 553, was called to clarify, among other things, doctrines regarding Christology.  From Wikipedia:

The purpose of the condemnation [of Nestorianism] was to make plain that the Great Church, which followed a Chalcedonian creed, was firmly opposed to Nestorianism as supported by the Antiochene school which had either assisted Nestorius, the eponymous heresiarch, or had inspired the teaching for which he was anathematized and exiled.

This not being made plain a century earlier, given the relationship at Chalcedon between Theodoret the Nestorian and his approval of the Tome of Leo.

Epilogue

My understanding, though I am not fully certain, is that some or all of the anti-Chalcedonian Churches are in agreement with the Acts from the Second Council of Constantinople – in other words, the clarification conformed to their understanding. 

But by this time, there was too much water under the bridge.