Post-Chalcedon

Taking the same line of investigation as that adopted in the reading of the Acts of the Council, we find in this [post-Chalcedon] movement simply the continuation of the opposition which we discovered within the Council itself to its formularies and action.

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

NB: From the title, you might think I am done with the book with this post.  No, only about one-quarter of the way through.  It appears Sarkissian is first offering a high-level overview, after which he will develop further details.  Here, he is offering an overview of the aftermath, the situation in the years following the Council.

The Council of Chalcedon was not consonant with the predominant Christological tradition of the East.

That predominant tradition was Alexandrian.  After the Council, many leaders in the East were quite ready to find a way to come to terms with those who rejected Chalcedon – by not making acceptance of Chalcedon a prerequisite for reconciliation.  Over the course of the hundred years following Chalcedon, there were various imperial decrees and encyclicals that were intended to break the deadlock, and these Chalcedonian Eastern bishops welcomed these as opportunities for peace.

Of course, they were living in the midst of the trouble; the division was not in the West, fully embracing Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo under Rome.  The division was basically between the Alexandrians and the Antiochenes – all in the East.  In the practical life of the churches in the region, this split was a tormenting issue. 

More importantly, many of these bishops were not happy with the terminology of Chalcedon, despite having supported it or, as the conflicts remained for a century, for those succeeding those who supported it. 

Thus, when the bishops who had attended the Council of Chalcedon returned to their sees, they found themselves strongly opposed by their clergy, monks, and faithful laity.  They were regarded as “traitors” to the Orthodox or traditional faith.

Juvenal of Jerusalem faced such opposition on his return, that he went back to Constantinople to seek help from the emperor. 

“Soon [Juvenal] realized that his conduct at Chalcedon had leached unexpected fury in Palestine.  The majority of his flock considered him an apostate who had betrayed his former faith.”

There were bloody scenes in Egypt, home to the bishops that begged the Council to show some kindness regarding their situation.  They knew that if they supported the Council, they could be killed when they returned to Egypt.  They did not support the Council, yet still violence apparently ensued.  Any Patriarch that showed any Chalcedonian inclination did not last long in office.

Even in Syria, home to Antioch, there was significant local opposition – enough that eventually this center switched sides:

This opposition grew to such an extent that later, in the next century, Antioch became one of the most important centres of the opposite.

To those who held to the Alexandrian formulation of Cyril, the Tome of Leo could never sound perfectly Orthodox.  They saw the Tome as containing “Nestorianizing” terminology. 

Consider one example of attempted reconciliation: the Henoticon promulgated by the emperor Zeno in 482 – thirty-one years after the Council.  It accepted the Nicene Faith as possessing the only binding authority for all the Churches (referencing the third Council); it stresses that the Council of Ephesus (the third Council) followed faithfully the first Council; it gives Cyril his right place in the formulation.  In other words, while it doesn’t reject Chalcedon explicitly, it basically bypassed it. 

During the reign of Anastasius (491 – 518), the Henoticon became the recognized form of orthodoxy for the empire, as it was supported by royal authority.  This was satisfactory in the East, where there was continued desire by many for some sort of reconciliation; in Rome, this was not the case.  By bypassing Chalcedon, Leo was no longer to be considered as taking the place of Cyril. 

…Rome regarded the Council of Chalcedon as the victory of its own Christology and, at the same time, a vehicle for spreading its authority throughout the East.

All possible means of influence were used by Rome to maintain this advantage.  Once the Henoticon was promulgate by Zeno, Acacius, its author, was condemned by Rome.  This caused a schism (Acacian Schism) between Rome and Constantinople that lasted almost forty years (482 – 519).  The opposition was not based narrowly on the Christology, but on the fact that the Henoticon bypassed Chalcedon by ignoring it.

In the next century, another attempt at reconciliation was made: the Three Chapters.  The Three Chapters were a) the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, b) certain writings of Theodoret of Cyrus, and c) The letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris.  Emperor Justinian issued an edict in which the three chapters were anathematized – condemned. 

A brief reminder: these were three who advocated a Nestorian Christology; two of the three were present at Chalcedon and accepted the Tome of Leo.  Justinian felt that, at minimum, the anti-Chalcedonian position was valid because of acceptance of the “Nestorianizers” at Chalcedon.

…the fundamental reason for that opposition to the condemnation in the West was that to condemn the Three Chapters and especially the writings of Theodoret and Ibas would imply rejecting the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon…

Chalcedon was untouchable in the West, as it was the bulwark of both their Christology and their influence over the entire Church.  One hundred years after Chalcedon, at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, these three received condemnation.  This Council received widespread Western opposition until the beginning of the seventh century. 

Sarkissian has made it a point of emphasis that the Tome of Leo sounded too Nestorian to the ears of those bishops influenced by Alexandria.  He further examines this point by considering how actual confessing Nestorians received the decrees of the Council.

Most significant is the attitude of Nestorius himself towards the Tome of Leo.

Despite being in exile at the time, Nestorius was kept informed of the proceedings.

He was even provided with a copy of the Tome, which he found perfectly orthodox. …he states more explicitly the similarity or identity of Leo’s doctrine with his own.

Another testimony to Nestorius’ own attitude to Leonine Christology comes from his letter to the monks of Senoun.  Here, again, he praises Leo and thanks God for the reaffirmation of his doctrine.

What of the reactions to the Council by other Nestorians?  Of course, they were not invited to attend the Council.  But they saw the positive treatment of two of their own, Ibas and Theodoret.  In their official collection of Synodical Acts and Canons, one will find the Canons of this Council, the Definition of Christology, and the Tome of Leo.

Further, when emperors such as Zeno and Anastasius showed any support or sympathy for the Miaphysite (anti-Chalcedonian) position, the Nestorians involved themselves by opposing such efforts.

Conclusion

Just because Nestorians supported Chalcedon and the Tome doesn’t mean that this reflected a proper understanding of the Council and the Tome.  In other words, it need not mean that the pope and the Council were making orthodox a Nestorian Christology.

However, that such strong connections were present – as seen in the language, in the presence of strong advocates of Nestorianism in the Council, in the positive reaction of Nestorius himself, and in the positive reaction in subsequent followers of this doctrine – suggests that there was, at minimum, cause for cautiousness if not even for rejecting the decisions of the Council. 

Epilogue

I still find it difficult to understand how believing that man can state, in a very technical way, a precise definition of just how, exactly, God and man are to be found in one being – Jesus Christ.  We do not and can not have the words for this.  Yet it was enough of an issue to cause what became a permanent split. 

I wasn’t living then, so I don’t second-guess any of it.  Just saying, it is beyond my understanding how this Christological nuance can be such a strong point of division.

Some things are better left to mystery, it seems to me.