A New Language

These [nerve points] were proved later to have been present, though they could not be easily recognized or clearly appreciated in the enthusiastic atmosphere of the assembly.

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

While Sarkissian is not primarily interested in the study of the Council as such, the after effects of the Council cannot be understood without first examining the situation and proceedings of the Council. 

The Council has been described as the most ecumenical that ever was.  As far as number of participants, this is true.  Estimates range from 500 to 636 bishops and their representatives in attendance.  This included eighteen imperial commissioners; in the sixth session, the emperor Marcian and empress Pulcheria would make an appearance.

At the same time, it has remained the most controversial Council in the eyes of Eastern Christendom.  This is the point of Sarkissian’s examination, that of the Christological controversies that emerged out of the Council.

Emperor Theodosius II died on 28 July, 450; Marcian would come to the throne as the next emperor.  Sarkissian notes that this change marked a major shift in the religious sympathies of the throne.  Under Theodosius, Alexandria, through Cyril, held supremacy on the question of Christology.  Citing another historian:

“The new rulers would not tolerate the Alexandrian supremacy; in future it was from Constantinople that, like the State, the Church was to be governed.”

In any case, Marcian was concerned about the religious unity of his empire.  He invited the bishops to a council, to ensure “there could be in the future no doubt or difference of opinion.”  Unity would be restored and maintained.  The Council opened October 8, 451, and ran through November 1.  The emperor would thereafter issue a decree:

“All, therefore, shall be bound to hold to the decisions of the sacred Council of Chalcedon and to indulge no further doubts.”

The emperor’s firmness could not be doubted.  Yet, both during the Council and thereafter, significant disagreements were evident.  With this, Sarkissian begins his examination of these disagreements, these nerve points.

The first characteristic feature of the Council of Chalcedon, as it emerges from a reading of its Acts, is the prominent part played by the Roman legates with their insistence that the Tome of Leo should be accepted unconditionally and in toto.

The Roman delegation was in control throughout the Council.  The very first session began with hostility and aggression toward Dioscorus, the bishop of Alexandria.  (I have previously covered, in some detail, the issues regarding this hostility toward Dioscorus; that the empress was against him and against Alexandria was certainly a driving factor.)

Until this time, Alexandria had taken the lead in Eastern Christendom regarding Christian thought.  At Chalcedon, it was clear that the papal legates held the supreme position and authority.  This position was unequalled in any previous council.  Paschasinus, the head of the Roman delegation, would state:

“We have a commission from the most holy and most apostolic Bishop of Rome, who is the head of all the Churches, to see that Dioscorus shall have no seat in the Council… either he must retire or we depart.”

The final aim was not merely to remove Dioscorus; his removal was only a step toward the final aim.  The final aim was to accept, unequivocally, the Tome of Leo.  Dioscorus represented the single biggest obstacle toward victory.  The Tome was read in its entirety in the second session.  Roman influence, supported by imperial authority, was predominant in the consideration. 

In this atmosphere many bishops hailed the Tome with acclimation.  Yet there were others, namely those from Palestine and Illyricum, who found it, mainly on three points, ambiguous and its language unfamiliar.

The doctrine did not ring true to what these bishops were used to.  In the face of Rome and in the shadow of the emperor, they spoke up to protest and to raise objections.  Explanations were not satisfactory; they were given five days to study the Tome and reconsider their objections.

In the fourth session, Paschasinus declared once more that the “true faith” was the faith as expounded in the Tome of Leo and that faith the Synod held, and allowed nothing to be added to it or taken from it.

The objecting bishops acquiesced, having been assured of the Tome’s orthodoxy by the Roman legates and other bishops.  This, however, did not solve the problem.  The most unyielding opposition came from the bishops of Egypt – Alexandria, and with it, the stronghold of Cyril’s Christology. 

They faced a dilemma: as Dioscorus was now no longer bishop of Alexandria, they had to wait for a new bishop in succession for direction and guidance. This wasn’t merely a deflection or an escape from responsibility.  Acceptance of the Tome meant, to them a rejection of Cyril. 

The language of the Tome was so hard to their ears and revealed such close association with Antiochene Christological terminology, that they simply could not consent to it. …

Their words captured their distress:

“We can no longer live at home if we do this.” … “We shall be killed, we shall be killed if we do it!  We would rather be made away with here by you rather than there…Have mercy upon us, show us kindness!”

These bishops understood very well the situation, and there was opposition from them and others – including many in Constantinople.  Alexandrian Christology, given shape by Cyril, was formed and strengthened through the struggle with Antiochene Christology.  The latter was condemned, in the Council of Ephesus twenty years earlier.  Its champion, Nestorius, lived in exile for many years since.

And now to hear a new language from the West so consonant with the one condemned, and, in some places, even surpassing it in its separatist tone, was indeed distressing for the followers of the Ephesian tradition.

The Roman position remained absolutist and uncompromising.  The Roman legates would leave if they did not get their way; they would hold a separate council in Rome.  This was a critical moment for the imperial commissioners; for them, the whole point of the council was to unify the faith within the empire.

They went as far as to order the synod to “receive into the creed the doctrine of Leo, which has been stated.”

At this point, there is a break in the Acts of the Council.  Whatever points and counterpoints were offered were not recorded.  Clearly, the pressure from Rome and the commissioners weighed heavily on the discussions.

It was during this time, whatever discussions took place, that final language was accepted.  The change, and the difficulty, appears to be in a single preposition: “in” vs. “from.”  “In two natures” as opposed to “from two natures”.  “In” was accepted by the Council, “from” was the term held by those who objected. 

So, the Council accepted this language; now the decision had to be defended.  Emperor Marcian was sent the Allocutio:

Let no one attack the contents of the Tome by alleging that it is somehow alien to the faith… Let [the opponents] not bring forward the Tome of the admirable bishop of the Roman See as being an innovation.

Conclusion

Did the emperor achieve his objective?  Was there a coming together after this Council, a common ground, a synthesis?  At a high level, history tells us the answer, and Sarkissian summarizes it here:

What the bishops at the Council were afraid of would happen, namely that this language would be interpreted as an innovation, was in fact what happened after the Council.

The details of the objections will be addressed in detail through this book.