Seeker with question about Chalcedon Council

[rturner76]

I am wondering if anyone knows what argument was made that made them vote to change the understanding of Christ's nature? I mean, were certain churches more inclined to change? Had certain Bishops already been making the argument in the pulpit or writing about it? Was it more of a regional power consolidation?

I am asking because I feel more comfortable with the Non-Chalcedonian view but I would like to know why people wanted to change and see if I agree with their reasoning.

 

[ArmyMatt]

it wasn't a change in Christology. everything in Chalcedon you can find in Scripture and earlier Fathers to include St Cyril.

 

[Andrei D]

I will leave more learned people to explain, but my understanding is that they didn't really change Christology.

My admittedly very simplistic view of it is that in defending the already established understanding against Nestorius, St. Cyril was very forceful in his arguments. Then people like Dioscorus took that ball and went too far afield at the robber council of Ephesus. Chalcedon just restored sanity, and found a common faith between St Cyril's writings and St Leo's Tome. It's hard to say it was a "change" at that time.

 

[hedrick]

They didn't see it as a change, but as a clarification. There were lots of ways of talking about the Incarnation, and lots of concerns about them. One guy taught that Jesus didn't have a human spirit, but the Holy Spirit took its place. That attacked Jesus' humanity. Others gave the impression that Jesus was a man with a special relationship with God but not fully God. There wasn't a single description that everyone agreed upon. Chalcedon is, in fact, a compromise. It tries to maintain both the reality of Jesus' humanity, by the "two natures" formulation, and his true divinity, by saying that there is no separate human person, but that the human nature was assumed by the Logos. (This isn't quite explicit in the language, but that's what they meant.)

There was certainly politics involved. Nestorius, precipitated things by denying that Mary was the Mother of God, sort of. This caused a popular revolt, more because people felt it attacked Mary, than because of errors in theology. There was lots of politics involved, and competing councils. But there was also a real theological issue: the Church needed to clarify how it spoke of the Incarnation. Chadwick comments (speaking of a council before Chalcedon, which provided much of the basis for it): "The reunion of 433 was a compromise achieved by ecclesiastical politicians under government pressure, and theologians on both sides were forced to swallow their principles, which they did unwillingly."

There was continuing conflict after it, as much for political reasons as anything else, but in the end most people could live with the compromise.

 

[hedrick]

Recent scholarship suggests that in the conflict, the views of some people were misrepresented (both Thedore and Nestorius), though not everyone agrees. And recently, there have been agreements between some Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches that they hold essentially the same faith. There are even disagreements among Chalcedonians. E.g. Lutherans have traditionally accused Reformed of overemphasizing the separation between human and God.

Modern theology is still concerned about doing justice to Jesus' humanity and the fact that is truly God incarnate, but often takes a different approach than any of the ancient theologians.

 

[ArmyMatt]

if we really hold the same faith, why is Chalcedon still not acceptable (or more importantly, Constantinople III)?

 

[rakovsky]

I am wondering if anyone knows what argument was made that made them vote to change Christology? I mean, were certain churches more inclined to change? Had certain Bishops already been making the argument in the pulpit or writing about it? Was it more of a regional power consolidation?

I am asking because I feel more comfortable with the Non-Chalcedonian view but I would like to know why people wanted to change and see if I agree with their reasoning.

The basic Christian understanding in the Bible is that Christ is God and man, both human and divine. In the centuries leading up to Chalcedon, the Church fathers had been talking about this, explaining this in terms like saying that Christ has humanity and divinity, which are two natures, so Christ has two natures. In the early period, it was actually the "heretics", like Docetists (meaning "Sseemers") and some Gnostics, who said that Christ was a divine being who only SEEMED to be human and to have humanity.

The EOs said that Christ has two natures, whereas different OOs denied this for different reasons. Some (the typical OO view today) believed that Christ has only one nature, ie. a divine-human nature, whereas other OOs believed that Christ's one nature is a solely divine nature. So the EOs called Chalcedon to resolve the question. From the EO POV, Chalcedon was not a "change" in theology as the OP suggests, but rather it was a clarification to decide an issue of the faith, similar to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and the Council of Nicea (the 1st Ecumenical Council).

 

[rakovsky]

if we really hold the same faith, why is Chalcedon still not acceptable (or more importantly, Constantinople III)?

There actually have been some declarations by OO hierarchs in the last century saying that Chalcedon's Creed is orthodox. I would have to look them up again if I needed the citations. It might have been with the leading Coptic Metropolitan Bishoy in joint statements that made up some of the ecumenical dialogues.

But nonetheless, I think it's very hard for the OO Churches as a whole institution and as a community to formally declare Chalcedon to be correct theologically. This is because the OOs and their leaders for so many centuries distinguished themselves as rejecting Chalcedon, and because the OOs are a Church who highly value their Traditions (like the EOs do). It means that Dioscorus and Severus made a BIG mistake when they persecuted the EOs like Pat. Flavian and others for supposed heresy. If one accepts the Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology and religion, there are other implications that flow from accepting that Chalcedon was correct theologically, eg. the EO Church is "The Church". It's not impossible, of course, since ROCOR, the Old Believers, and the MP reconciled and reunited. It's just hard because the rejection of Chalcedon was so important for the OOs' major leaders (eg. Dioscorus) and Church history.

It's hard for me to find an exact analogy. Imagine if you and I went through the history of Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus I very leniently, resolving all ambiguities in favor of Nestorius. So if Nestorius says that Christ has two "hypo-stases", we could consider that perhaps he actually meant this ambiguous term in the way that the NT and the Latin Chalcedonians use the word "sub-stances", ie that Christ has two "substantia" or essences. And then we could reunite with the ACOE without demanding that they accept our anti-Nestorian Councils. I think that the EOs would be very reluctant to do this or to reconsider Nestorius in such a liberal, easy way, because we have a Church Council rejecting him. Our Councils are probably more important to us than the OOs' rejection of Chalcedon (IMO), but both have historically been very important in our Traditions, and this makes it hard to put those past positions aside or to reevaluate them so fundamentally.

 

[hedrick]

It's hard for me to find an exact analogy. Imagine if you and I went through the history of Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus I very leniently, resolving all ambiguities in favor of Nestorius. So if Nestorius says that Christ has two "hypo-stases", we could consider that perhaps he actually meant this ambiguous term in the way that the NT and the Latin Chalcedonians use the word "sub-stances", ie that Christ has two "substantia" or essences. And then we could reunite with the ACOE without demanding that they accept our anti-Nestorian Councils. I think that the EOs would be very reluctant to do this or to reconsider Nestorius in such a liberal, easy way, because we have a Church Council rejecting him. Our Councils are probably more important to us than the OOs' rejection of Chalcedon (IMO), but both have historically been very important in our Traditions, and this makes it hard to put those past positions aside or to reevaluate them so fundamentally.

Is what you value about the councils the rejection of Nestorius as a person or Nestorianism as a theology? Suppose it could be shown that Nestorius' ideas were misunderstood or misrepresented. You could still reject Nestorianism as a position even if he didn't actually hold it.

The opposite possibility also exists. Support OO churches that are considered Nestorian don't actually hold quite the positions condemned? E.g. that the way in which they intend terminology has been misunderstood?

 

[ArmyMatt]

There actually have been some declarations by OO hierarchs in the last century saying that Chalcedon's Creed is orthodox. I would have to look them up again if I needed the citations. It might have been with the leading Coptic Metropolitan Bishoy in joint statements that made up some of the ecumenical dialogues.

But nonetheless, I think it's very hard for the OO Churches as a whole institution and as a community to formally declare Chalcedon to be correct theologically. This is because the OOs and their leaders for so many centuries distinguished themselves as rejecting Chalcedon, and because the OOs are a Church who highly value their Traditions (like the EOs do). It means that Dioscorus and Severus made a BIG mistake when they persecuted the EOs like Pat. Flavian and others for supposed heresy. If one accepts the Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology and religion, there are other implications that flow from accepting that Chalcedon was correct theologically, eg. the EO Church is "The Church". It's not impossible, of course, since ROCOR, the Old Believers, and the MP reconciled and reunited. It's just hard because the rejection of Chalcedon was so important for the OOs' major leaders (eg. Dioscorus) and Church history.

It's hard for me to find an exact analogy. Imagine if you and I went through the history of Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus I very leniently, resolving all ambiguities in favor of Nestorius. So if Nestorius says that Christ has two "hypo-stases", we could consider that perhaps he actually meant this ambiguous term in the way that the NT and the Latin Chalcedonians use the word "sub-stances", ie that Christ has two "substantia" or essences. And then we could reunite with the ACOE without demanding that they accept our anti-Nestorian Councils. I think that the EOs would be very reluctant to do this or to reconsider Nestorius in such a liberal, easy way, because we have a Church Council rejecting him. Our Councils are probably more important to us than the OOs' rejection of Chalcedon (IMO), but both have historically been very important in our Traditions, and this makes it hard to put those past positions aside or to reevaluate them so fundamentally.

but then you still gotta ask, why are they in a body that formally rejects something they view as true?

as for your second point, the problem is Nestorius said things that are totally irreconcilable with Orthodoxy.

 

[rturner76]

I apologize for using the wrong term (Christology) to describe this differing view. I will alter the OP to make more sense.

The EOs said that Christ has two natures, whereas different OOs denied this for different reasons. Some (the typical OO view today) believed that Christ has only one nature, ie. a divine-human nature, whereas other OOs believed that Christ's one nature is a solely divine nature. So the EOs called Chalcedon to resolve the question. From the EO POV, Chalcedon was not a "change" in theology as the OP suggests, but rather it was a clarification to decide an issue of the faith, similar to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and the Council of Nicea (the 1st Ecumenical Council).

So would it be correct to say that from the beginning, Church bodies had differing views on Christ's nature and they had a vote at Chalcedon about it? Or was the view that Christ has one nature the more commonly held view and some important scholars were concerned about not recognizing Christ's human nature so a movement started that needed to be addressed?

I'm interested in reading about Early Church Fathers' views and reasoning behind the different views on Christ's nature.

In my heart, it feels easier to believe Christ has one nature iin that anything that is partially divine is divine or I should say it like if Jesus exists within the trinity that is God, Jesus is God with flesh as he The Father and The Holy Spirit share the same divine nature-then Christ has a human body which has a human brain that has human thoughts and challenges. His divine nature being present making hiim perfect in every way.

That probably only made sense to me, sorry if I seem confused. I guess I am a little. Then I think, does any of this effect on how I worship/live or how salvation works? I mean, is wanting to be "correct" on this issue worth changing churches?

What are the most relevant things to consider I know I am philosophically more comfortable with Orthodoxy than my current Roman Aristotelian logic/philosophy but I need to decide between EO and OO as I choose a specific Church to attend. This all came up because as I looked for an Orthodox Church, felt most comfortable with The Ethiopian ans Eritrean Churches. I mean the two brick and mortar churches, not the two "Churches" as in THE Church. Ok I've gone on long enough.

 

[Barney2.0]

The council of Chalcedon changed nothing the early Christians believed in or the Christological position of the Church. The council of Chalcedon was done to confront the heresies of Monophysitism and Nestorianism which still had much support despite being condemned earlier in the council of Ephesus. You also find the concept of Christ having two natures being clearly expressed in the writings of Irenaeus hundreds of years before the council of Chalcedon, his writings were even used in support of the Orthodox position at Chalcedon. As for the Non Chalcedonians the Oriental Orthodox, there position is almost exactly the same as the Chalcedonian one except for the fact that there have different Christological definition for the two natures of Christ, such as believing that the two natures are united into another singular compound nature without division or mixing, apart from that there basically the same doctrine.

 

[hedrick]

There are a number of complexities here.

First, at this time doctrine was still in flux. So it’s not as if there was an established position that suddenly changed at Chalcedon. There were a number of attempts at formulating Christology that had changed over time. Chalcedon tried to agree on a formula that allowed moderate versions of the two major approaches.

Second, the positions weren’t held by churches, in the modern sense. No one thought of separate denominations, like EO and OO. There was a tendency for different areas to hold their own theologies, but there were also different schools, and well-known individual theologians. Part of the problem is that there was politics between some of the bishops, and at times they tried to find reasons to accuse the other of heresy. There were also “dirty tricks.”

The orthodox one-nature position is a bit more complex than just “Christ is God.” Christology needs to take into account Jesus’ humanity. If you don’t do that, you’re docetic. None of the major schools intended that. E.g. Eutyches taught a form of one-nature theology that everyone rejected. Quoting from Wikipedia: “Eutychianism, which has been considered an extreme form of monophysitism,[5] holds that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused into one new single (mono) nature: His human nature was "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea."[a] Eutychianism was condemned at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. Eutychianism was also condemned at the non-chalcedonian Third Council of Ephesus in 475.”

Today's churches that emphasize one nature typically use the term miaphysite theology, to distinguish it from Eutyches. They accept Cyril. As I understand it, he also taught two natures, but said that they were united into one nature. Chalcedon said that they were united into one person. It seems that the one nature and the one person were functionally just about the same. In the end Cyril ended up accepting Chalcedon as equivalent. I don't want to overstate things. They are *not* identical except replacing one word with another. There is more complexity. But still, miaphysite theology does try to maintain the full humanity of Jesus, just as two-nature theology does.

If your instinct tells you that Christ is simply the Logos, in a single nature, you might want to verify that you’re not accepting Eutyches, which even the OO reject. One question that came up later, which illuminates it is this: Are there one or two wills in Christ? If there’s just one, then he’s not a complete human. If there are two, then it seems that there is a distinct human nature, which retains its distinctiveness despited being united to form a single person (Chalcedon), nature (Cyril) or prosopon (Nestorius).

 

[ArmyMatt]

There are a number of complexities here.

First, at this time doctrine was still in flux. So it’s not as if there was an established position that suddenly changed at Chalcedon. There were a number of attempts at formulating Christology that had changed over time. Chalcedon tried to agree on a formula that allowed moderate versions of the two major approaches.

Second, the positions weren’t held by churches, in the modern sense. No one thought of separate denominations, like EO and OO. There was a tendency for different areas to hold their own theologies, but there were also different schools, and well-known individual theologians. Part of the problem is that there was politics between some of the bishops, and at times they tried to find reasons to accuse the other of heresy. There were also “dirty tricks.”

The orthodox one-nature position is a bit more complex than just “Christ is God.” Christology needs to take into account Jesus’ humanity. If you don’t do that, you’re docetic. None of the major schools intended that. E.g. Eutyches taught a form of one-nature theology that everyone rejected. Quoting from Wikipedia: “Eutychianism, which has been considered an extreme form of monophysitism,[5] holds that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused into one new single (mono) nature: His human nature was "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea."[a] Eutychianism was condemned at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. Eutychianism was also condemned at the non-chalcedonian Third Council of Ephesus in 475.”

Today's churches that emphasize one nature typically use the term miaphysite theology, to distinguish it from Eutyches. They accept Cyril. As I understand it, he also taught two natures, but said that they were united into one nature. Chalcedon said that they were united into one person. It seems that the one nature and the one person were functionally just about the same. At least Cyril ended up accepting Chalcedon as equivalent. They are *not* identical except for which word they use. There are lots of complexities. But miaphysite theology does try to maintain the full humanity of Jesus.

If your instinct tells you that Christ is simply the Logos, in a single nature, you might want to verify that you’re not accepting Eutyches, which even the OO reject. One question that came up later, which illuminates it is this: Are there one or two wills in Christ? If there’s just one, then he’s not a complete human. If there are two, then it seems that there is a distinct human nature, which retains its distinctiveness despited being united to form a single person (Chalcedon), nature (Cyril) or prosopon (Nestorius).

that's just it. St Cyril AND other earlier Fathers used the Two Natures formula. and the Chalcedonians dogmatized in Council the mia physis formula.

 

[rakovsky]

Is what you value about the councils the rejection of Nestorius as a person or Nestorianism as a theology? Suppose it could be shown that Nestorius' ideas were misunderstood or misrepresented. You could still reject Nestorianism as a position even if he didn't actually hold it.

The opposite possibility also exists. Support OO churches that are considered Nestorian don't actually hold quite the positions condemned? E.g. that the way in which they intend terminology has been misunderstood?

I understand your point regarding misunderstanding Nestorius, etc. I think that perhaps Nestorius was misunderstood. Maybe he wrote in confusing language that may or may not have implied Christ was in two persons. I believe that he didn't intend to teach that Christ was in two separate persons, as he denied teaching that.

To clarify: The ACOE (Assyrian Church of the East) is usually considered Nestorian because it accepts Nestorius. Chalcedon and Ephesus I rejected Nestorius' teaching, as you described and some later Councils rejected Nestorius in his person. But the rejection of him in his person wasn't as important as the rejection of the teaching that he was thought to hold.
The OOs (Oriental Orthodox) have traditionally been considered anti-Dyophysite, anti-Chalcedonian, anti-Nestorian, and/or "Monophysite". They have traditionally rejected Chalcedon in the past.

 

[hedrick]

They have traditionally rejected Chalcedon in the past.

Misinterpretation needn't be just on one side. They thought Chalcedon had given in to Nestorianism. Some of its language was similar.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Nestorius' language wasn't unclear. his twelve anathemas against St Cyril are very heretical.

 

[Andrei D]

. his twelve anathemas against St Cyril

???

 

[rakovsky]

but then you still gotta ask, why are they in a body that formally rejects something they view as true?

I think what happened generally was that they grew up in the OO Church and later on came to view the two natures language of EOs as acceptable. But it's still pretty hard for them as humans raised in their own Churches to take the steps of saying that their community was wrong about Chalxedon, so that the EOs are the one Church and they need to join it. There are a lot of steps along the way.

 

[rakovsky]

So would it be correct to say that from the beginning, Church bodies had differing views on Christ's nature and they had a vote at Chalcedon about it?

That sounds right.

Or was the view that Christ has one nature the more commonly held view and some important scholars were concerned about not recognizing Christ's human nature so a movement started that needed to be addressed?

Personally, I think that the idea that Christ has one nature, a "divine and human nature", as Pope Leo used the phrase in his Tome - is compatible with the view that Christ has two natures, divinity and humanity, which was the main point of Leo's Tome. My own sense is that Cyril accepted both concepts as well, and I have found both phrases in his writings. So they were both common phrases and ideas, but the EO theologians needed to declare that it was right to teach two natures because some people were denying this.

To give you a very simple rundown of the history:
Eutyches taught that Christ had only one nature, which was divine and not human. (Generally OOs today reject the idea that Christ has only a divine nature.)

Patriarch Flavian deposed Eutyches and taught that Christ had two natures, humanity and divinity.

Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria called the Council of Ephesus II and deposed Patriarch Flavian for teaching that Christ has two natures. The basic OO argument has been that something with two natures must be two separate persons.

Pope Leo rejected Ephesus II and called it a Robber Council because it used violence to get Flavian deposed. Pope Leo convened Chalcedon to overturn/invalidate Ephesus II and to teach that Christ has two natures.