Describing Christ’s Nature

The Council of Ephesus was the triumph of Alexandria over Constantinople and Antioch, and the prestige of the Egyptian Patriarch in the East rose considerably. In fighting the false doctrine of the school of Antioch, however, the theologians of the Alexandrine school went too far in stressing the divine nature of the incarnate Son. They taught that the divine nature absorbed the human nature in Christ so that, after his incarnation, the Son of God possessed only one nature, the divine. Christ’s body was deified. This doctrine of one nature in Christ, called Monophysitism, became very popular in Egypt.

The Ecumenical Councils (html), by Francis Dvornik

We are just after the third council at Ephesus.  The issue is spelled out in the above paragraph.  However, two points should be raised.  First, Dvornik seems to be suggesting that the third council erred – yes, this council overcame the teaching of Antioch, however it ended up approving another false doctrine.

This could also be considered more generously: as the Church moved into ever more nuanced discussion on an unknowable topic, each step served merely to move closer to the truth (or each step served to turn away a falsehood more than it did in clarifying truth).  I am more comfortable with this second possibility, although I do not discount the idea that Church councils can err.

Yet, if it is this second possibility, then the fourth council – Chalcedon – can also be seen in a similar light, as clearing away some of the brush of falsehood and opening the possibility of further refinement toward truth regarding Christology.

The second point to raise: the Churches which followed the Alexandrine school do not consider themselves Monophysite, but Miaphysite.  Yes, the Son possessed only one nature, but it was a nature made up of both God and man.  I am not very qualified to write more about this.

Next, to offer the approach by which this author takes:

The simple Egyptian people might still have been under the spell of the old pagan belief in the divine character of their kings.

He contrasts Monophysitism as against orthodoxy.  I want to be clear: every writer comes to a subject with some pre-conceived notions and biases.  I certainly do (although I have evolved in my thinking on many subjects over the years).  I only point out this statement by the author to note that what follows will not really be a balanced treatment.

The Robber Synod (449)

The third council wasn’t satisfactory, with lines drawn on this idea of one nature in Christ vs. two (and, keep in mind: the one nature of Alexandria was a nature both of God and man).  The clash led to what became known as the Robber Synod.

The council, held in 449, was called by the emperor, Theodosius II.  This had been the practice with earlier councils, so it is difficult to simply dismiss the council.  However, Dvornik presents the evidence against the council as follows:

Dioscorus, however, accompanied by a great number of fanatical Egyptian monks, took control of the Council. Supported by his monks and the imperial police, he terrorized the assembled bishops. The papal legates were denied the position of prominence they claimed, the dogmatic letter of the pope was not even read; and Flavian, with other prominent supporters of the Orthodox doctrine, was deposed. They all turned to Pope Leo I with touching appeals. Flavian, who suffered injuries from Dioscorus’ men, died on his way to exile.

Dioscorus was the Patriarch of Alexandria, described by Dvornik as “an ambitious and unscrupulous man.”  Of course, reading the above description, to the extent accurate, this seems appropriate.  Then again, the description is entirely one-sided.

Council of Chalcedon (451)

The council of 449 was opposed by Leo I.  He proposed a new council, but the emperor, Theodosius, refused.  The emperor died shortly thereafter, and the emperor’s sister, Pulcheria, married Marcian.  After this, a new council was called.

The council examined and condemned the Acts of the Robber Synod; further, the council deposed Dioscorus.  Leo’s dogmatic letter was read: the Tome of Leo.  A new formula was developed and approved:

“We all confess unanimously one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, made known in two natures [which are] without confusion, change, separation or division and which both meet in one person.”

The direction of the debates belonged to eighteen imperial officials delegated by the emperor.  Marcian and Pulcheria presided over the sixth session, in which the above dogmatic formula was approved.

After the doctrinal definition, the Fathers dealt with disciplinary questions, rehabilitated the two leaders of the Antiochene school, Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, and promoted Jerusalem to patriarchal rank.

Recalling from the study of Chalcedon from the view of the Armenian Church, points such as this made at Chalcedon raised problematic issues toward its acceptance in Armenia.  These two were too closely related to the ideas attributed to Nestorius, hence a concern.  Recalling also, Nestorians were generally pleased with the outcome at Chalcedon.

As we will see, the fifth ecumenical council would reverse the rehabilitation of these two individuals.

Attempts at Compromise

The Monophysite (again, Miaphysite) Churches rejected Chalcedon.  Further, bishops sympathetic to this Christology were still appointed in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.  The next emperor, Leo I (not to be confused with the then-current pope) attempted to put an end to this division by calling a third council.  The pope disagreed with this.

Here we come to emperor Zeno, and the Henoticon, an attempt at compromise.  This document declared only the Niceno-Constantinopolitan profession of faith and the decisions of the Council of Ephesus as binding.  It satisfied few on either side.

I have not read or examined this documents, but given this description, I suspect it would satisfy me!

The Second Council of Constantinople (553)

As his hope for winning over the Monophysites had remained fruitless, Justinian accepted the suggestion that the Monophysites could be won over if he condemned the writings of certain theologians of the Antiochene school to which the Alexandrines principally objected. The Emperor published an edict condemning the Three Chapters, namely: the person and the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius’ teacher, the writings of Theodoret of Cyrus against St Cyril and the Council of Ephesus and thirdly, a letter of Ibas of Edessa, in which Theodore was defended, and St Cyril’s objections refuted.

It will be recalled that the inclusion of Theodore of Mopsuestia at Chalcedon was one of the reasons this council was ultimately rejected by several churches; further, Theodoret and Ibas were rehabilitated at that same council.  In other words, Justinian, in an attempt to find reconciliation, reversed or contradicted decisions made in an official church council.

Justinian, as emperor, overstepped his bounds.  This was a church matter, to be resolved only by a council of bishops.  Justinian called this council in 553.

Pope Vigilius refused to appear at the council.  At this council, the Three Chapters were condemned – meaning a reversal from Chalcedon regarding the persons of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas.

Impressed by the opposition to the condemnation, manifested by many Western prelates, the pope first forbade the condemnation, but later on, under heavy pressure from the side of the Emperor, accepted (December 8th, 553) the decisions of the Council.

The western bishops did not want to approve of an act that would contradict anything from Chalcedon, at which the Tome of Leo took center stage.

The next year (February 23rd), after a more thorough study, convinced that the condemnation did no prejudice to the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, Vigilius confirmed the condemnation of the Three Chapters, thus recognizing the Council of 553 as the Fifth Ecumenical. Broken in health, he died on his way back to Rome.

Conclusion

It strikes me that this could have been an opportunity for reconciliation between the churches who accepted Chalcedon and those which rejected it.  Unfortunately, too much water had passed under the bridge: after one hundred years, those churches which rejected Chalcedon would not now accept it, and without accepting it they would not return into communion.

Epilogue

Subsequent to this, Persian advances in Syria and Palestine revealed to the emperor the risks that this split in the church exposed: the Miaphysite churches perhaps siding with the invaders.  A sixth council was called, again to try to bring some compromise, but to no avail.

This spilt did have implications for empire.  In some ways, it also proved advantageous for the Miaphysite churches, as they seemed to gain more favorable treatment from the Persians than from the Byzantines.