Chalcedon Cathedral - the famous Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church, which was convened and held in the middle of the 5th century on the initiative of the Eastern Roman Emperor Marcian, consent to it was received from Pope Leo I. It got its name from the ancient Greek city of Chalcedon in Middle Asia, which is currently one of the districts of modern Istanbul, known as Kadikoy. The main theme of the council was the heresy of Archimandrite Eutychius of Constantinople. At first, it was called Eutychianism, after his name, and then its meaning began to be reflected in the name - Monophysitism.
According to popular belief, the essence of heresy was that in Jesus Christ they began to confess only his divine nature, because of this he was recognized only as God, but not as a man. The cathedral was officially opened on October 8, 451, lasted until November 1, during which time 17 plenary meetings took place.meetings.
Reasons
It is noteworthy that there were religious and political reasons for convening the Council of Chalcedon. The religious ones consisted in the fact that the Alexandrian Patriarch Diskor continued the work of his predecessor Cyril in the fight against Nestorianism. This is the so-called teaching of Archbishop Nestorius of Constantinople, which was condemned as heresy at the previous Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. In fact, it is a variant of the development of the Antiochian theological school, to which John Chrysostom belonged. At the same time, the main principle of Nestorianism is the recognition of the complete symmetry of the God-manhood of Christ.
After 431, Dioscorus decided to put an end to this issue at the so-called Ephesus "robber" council, held in 449. The result was the replacement of the dual Nestorian nature of Christ with the decision of the Council on the monolithic Monophysite nature.
However, this wording was fundamentally at odds with the message sent by Pope Leo I the Great Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople, as well as the council itself in 449. It is worth noting that Leo I himself did not take part in the work of the cathedral, since Attila's troops were near Rome at that time. The pope sent legates to this council, who were supposed to defend its formulations, but they failed to fulfill their task. As a result, the decisions, later recognized as heretical, were approved by the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire Theodosius II.
After his death, the situationchanged drastically. His own sister Pulcheria, who had the official title of Augusta, married Senator Marcian and placed him on the throne. She was a supporter of Pope Leo I. In addition, it is known that Dioscorus managed to set the imperial couple against himself, which led to such an early convening of the IV Ecumenical Council.
Among the political reasons for the convening of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, it should be noted that both its convocation and control by the emperor and his administration were provoked by the desire to ensure religious unity in the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire. This was to contribute to its internal political stability.
The rivalry between the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Constantinople continued as before, which began even after the Council of Constantinople in 381 put the See of Constantinople in second place after Rome, displacing the See of Alexandria in third place. All this threatened the unity of the entire empire.
The idea that the strength and unity of the entire state depends on a single belief in the correct Trinity can also be found in letters to the emperor from Pope Leo I. The relevance of this thesis was indirectly confirmed by the events that occurred shortly before that in North Africa. There began an armed struggle against the Donatist schism, followed by the conquest of Carthage by the Vandals in 429, to whose side the circumcillions also went over.
Place and time
According to the edict adopted by the emperor, initially all the bishops gathered inthe ancient city of Nicaea, which is located on the territory of modern Turkish Iznik.
But soon after that, they were all called to Chalcedon, which was located much closer to the capital. Therefore, the emperor had the opportunity to personally attend the meetings. They were directly led by his officials. In particular, Commander-in-Chief Anatoly, Prefect of Constantinople Tatian and Prefect of the Praetorium of the East Palladius.
List of participants
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 was presided over by Anatoly of Constantinople, who had become patriarch two years earlier. Before accession to the throne of Marcian, he made an important decision for himself and went over to the side of the Orthodox. In total, from 600 to 630 fathers were present at the council, including representatives of the presbyter rank, who could replace one or another bishop.
Of the most famous participants in the Council of Chalcedon in 451, it is worth noting:
- Damian of Antioch, who was previously deposed by Dioscorus, but then returned from captivity after Marcian came to power;
- Maxim, who took the place of the first patriarch of Jerusalem Juvenaly;
- Falassios of Caesarea-Cappadocia;
- Bishop of Cyrus Blessed Theodoret;
- Dioscorus of Alexandria;
- Eusebius of Dorileus.
Pope Leo I, who insisted that the council be convened in Italy, did not attend it himself again, but nevertheless sent his legates. In their capacity, Presbyter Boniface arrived at the Council of Chalcedon, as well as the bishopsLucentia and Paskhazina.
Also at the council was a large number of high-ranking officials, among whom were senators and dignitaries who took an active part in its work. The only exceptions were those cases when it was required to consider exclusively church matters, for example, the trial of a bishop.
Condemnation of Monophysitism
One of the main decisions of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was the condemnation of the heretical teachings of Eutyches. In fact, the council began with a review of the decisions taken at the so-called "robber" council in Ephesus in 449, and also proceeded to the trial of Dioscorus.
The accuser at the trial was Eusebius of Doryleus, who presented a detailed account of all the facts of violence committed by Dioscorus at the previous council, held two years earlier.
After the announcement of this document by the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, it was decided to deprive Dioscorus of the right to vote, immediately after that he automatically became one of the defendants. In particular, it was testified that the act of that council cannot be trusted, since then about a thousand monks, led by Varsuma, burst into the meeting and threatened the bishops with reprisals if they did not take appropriate decisions. As a result, many put their signatures under the threat of violence, some signed blank sheets.
In addition, accusations were received against Dioscorus from several Egyptian bishops, who accused him of cruelty, immorality and other violence. Dioscorus was condemned at the council and deposed, just as in fact werethe results and results of the "robber" council were cancelled. It was decided to forgive the bishops who took part in it on the side of Dioscorus, as they repented of their actions, explaining that they acted under fear of the threats that they regularly received.
Act of Faith
After that, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the official adoption of a new doctrinal Christological definition took place. It was important to expound the doctrine of two natures in the person of Jesus Christ, which would be alien to the extremes that existed in Monophysitism and Nestorianism. It was necessary to develop something in between, such a teaching was to become Orthodox.
It was decided to take as a model the statement of faith made by John of Antioch, Cyril of Alexandria, as well as the message of Pope Leo I sent to Flavian. Thus, it was possible to develop a dogma about the image of the union in the person of Jesus Christ of two natures.
This creed condemned both Monophysitism and Nestorianism. Theodrite, who was present at the council, whom the Egyptian bishops suspected of Nestorianism, spoke out with an anathema against Nestorius and also signed his condemnation. After that, at the council, it was decided to remove the condemnation imposed by Dioscorus from him and restore him to the dignity. Also, the condemnation was lifted from the Bishop of Edessa Iva.
As before, only the Egyptian bishops continued to behave ambiguously, who did not fully show their attitude to the definition of faith. On the one hand they signed the condemnationEutychius, but at the same time they did not want to support the messages of the Pope to Flavian, explaining this by the custom existing in Egypt, according to which they cannot make any significant decisions without the determination and permission of their archbishop. And after the deposition of the previous archbishop by Dioscorus, they simply did not have a new one. Council members urged them to swear that they would sign the necessary papers as soon as an archbishop was elected.
As a result, the number of signatories of this decision, known as the dogma of the Council of Chalcedon, was approximately 150 people less than the number of those gathered at the council. When Emperor Marcian was informed of the official adoption of the decision, he, along with Pulcheria, came to the sixth meeting, at which he delivered a speech. In it, he expressed his joy that everything was done peacefully and according to the general desire. According to the Aramaic protocols that have come down to us, Marcian's speech was enthusiastically received by those present, who accompanied it with bright exclamations.
Canons of the Cathedral
After that, the fathers began to draw up the rules of the Chalcedon Ecumenical Council, 30 of them were adopted in total. The main subjects that were discussed were issues of church deanery and church government. Several canons of Chalcedon 4 were of particular importance.
Let's consider the main ones in this article. The first act of the Council of Chalcedon recognized the justice of the rules of the holy fathers. It was noted that they would be detailed in the canonical accounts.
Detail was spelled outprocedure for disputes that may arise between clerics. Rule 9 of the Council of Chalcedon establishes that in the event of a court case, clerics should not neglect the decision of their bishop and secular court, but, first of all, go to the bishop for advice. Those who disobeyed were called to condemn and punish according to all the rules.
The whole procedure was spelled out in detail in this rule of the Council of Chalcedon. If the cleric has a court case with the bishop, then it should be considered in the regional Council, and if the cleric or bishop is dissatisfied with the metropolitan, then they should apply to Constantinople.
Great importance was also given to the 17th rule of the Council of Chalcedon. It was decided that in every diocese, all parishes in towns and villages must necessarily be under the authority of the bishop, especially if this situation has persisted over the past 30 years. If this period has not yet expired or there is some kind of dispute, then this issue is submitted to the regional council. Rule 17 of the Council of Chalcedon established that if the city was built relatively recently or is only going to be built in the foreseeable future, then the distribution of church parishes should be made in strict accordance with the zemstvo and civil order.
Supremacy of the Bishop of Constantinople
The 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon was of great importance. It was it that finally established the supremacy in the East of the See of the Bishop of Constantinople.
Its text confirmed the status of Constantinople as the new Rome. 28th rule of the fourth Chalcedon EcumenicalThe cathedral was recognized for its equal advantages with the royal old Rome, it was ex alted in church affairs so much that Constantinople became the second after Rome. On this basis, according to the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, the metropolitans of Assia, Pontus and Thrace, as well as the bishops of these lands, undertake to appoint diocesan bishops, submitting in everything to Constantinople. At the same time, the metropolitans themselves are appointed by the Archbishop of Constantinople after elections are held according to a predetermined procedure and all worthy candidates are presented to him.
This decision has long been brewing, because compared to 381, when the first Ecumenical Council took place, the Patriarch of Constantinople has significantly expanded his zone of influence. In fact, the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon approved these changes. The local patriarchs already felt confident enough in Asia Minor and Thrace, they laid claim to a number of territories that initially belonged to the sphere of influence of Antioch and Rome. The current state of affairs was to be assessed by the entire church, to acquire a legal basis, which was done as a result of the adoption of the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon.
The question of the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople was considered at the end of the conciliar sessions. Interestingly, not everyone initially approved of the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon. As expected, the Roman legates, who, moreover, were absent during the discussion of this decision, opposed it. Therefore, they refused to sign these provisions, demanding that their dissenting opinion on this issue be included in the minutes. Their position was supported by dadRoman Leo I. He paused, not immediately expressing his attitude to the results of the council. Only after a certain time did he approve decisions related to matters of faith, but at the same time he spoke negatively about the ambitions of the Patriarch of Constantinople Anatoly, which manifested themselves when the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon was adopted.
In response to this, Anatoly assured Leo I that he was not guided by his own interests, he was ready to obey any of his decisions. The Pope took this statement as invalidating the rule, but in reality it reflected the real state of affairs and the real power that by that time the patriarchs of Constantinople had in Asia Minor and Thrace. Therefore, when the canon was included in the collections following the results of the work of the council, no one in the East raised questions.
As a result, the 28th canon of Chalcedon and its significance were very significant for the development of the whole church. Power between the eastern patriarchates was now divided as follows. The Asian, Thracian and Pontic regions fell under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, Egypt fell under the jurisdiction of Alexandria, most of the Eastern diocese of Antioch, and three provinces of the same Eastern diocese to Jerusalem.
Meaning
After the approval of these decisions by the emperor on the basis of the oros of the Council of Chalcedon, that is, the dogmatic definitions of Orthodoxy, strict laws were issued against the Monophysites. Everyone was ordered to accept only the doctrine determined at the council of 451. At the same time, the Monophysites were subjected topersecution and persecution. They were imprisoned or expelled. For the distribution of their writings, the death pen alty was due, and the books themselves were ordered to be burned. Eutyches and Disocorus were exiled to outlying provinces.
At the same time, the council failed to put a final end to the Christological disputes. But it was his definition of faith that, over the course of many subsequent centuries, became the basis for Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
At that time it was impossible not to notice the beginning of the decomposition of the Byzantine Empire. On the outskirts, separatist actions became stronger and stronger, which had a national basis, at the same time, in accordance with the spirit of the times, they sought to find justification and expression in the main dogmatic disagreements.
The authority of the council of 451 was restored in 518 at a council assembled in Constantinople by Patriarch John. It was attended by about 40 bishops who were in the capital at that time, as well as abbots from the surrounding and metropolitan monasteries. At the council, all those who condemned the decisions taken in Chalcedon were severely condemned. Among them were the Patriarch of Antioch, Severus, and the memory of the fallen champions of Orthodoxy was also justified. The very next year after this council, a reconciliation between the Eastern Church and Rome was achieved, a letter was signed by the Pope Hormizda, which completed the Akakian schism. Under this name, the 35-year-old dispute between the Churches of Constantinople and the Roman Church entered history.
It is interesting that the Coptic historiographer of the North in the "History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria" gives a non-standard assessment of the cathedral inChalcedonia in the chapter on the fate of Dioscorus. In it, he notes that Dioscorus became the patriarch of Alexandria after the death of Cyril, but suffered severe persecution for his faith from the emperor Marcian and his wife. As a result of the council in Chalcedon, they drove him from the throne.
Reaction of churches in Transcaucasia
It is worth noting that the council in the Church of Chalcedon took place without the participation of representatives of the churches of Transcaucasia. Having learned about the decisions taken at it, the leaders of the Georgian, Armenian and Albanian churches refused to recognize them. In particular, they saw in the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus Christ an attempt to revive Nestorianism, against which they were categorically opposed.
In 491, in the Armenian capital city of Vagharshapat, which has been the spiritual center of the Armenian people since the 4th century, a Local Council was held, in which representatives of the Albanian, Armenian and Georgian churches took part. It categorically rejected all the decisions and postulates adopted in Chalcedon.
At that moment, the Armenian Church was in a deplorable state due to the protracted bloody confrontation with Persia. The key moment of this confrontation was the Battle of Avarayr in 451, which took place between the troops led by the Armenian commander Vardan Mamikonyan, who rebelled against the Sasanian Empire and the forced imposition of Zoroastrianism. The Armenian rebels were defeated, by the way, the size of the army of their opponents was more than three times larger.
Because of these events, the Armenian Church was unable to followChristological disputes that unfolded in Byzantium, to reasonably express their position. When the country finally withdrew from the war during the period of Vahan Mamikonian, who had been the Persian governor in Armenia since 485, it became clear that there was no unity everywhere in Christological issues.
As a result, it is worth recognizing that the cathedral in Chalcedon, on which Emperor Marcian counted so much, did not bring peace to the Ecumenical Church. At that time, Christianity, at a minimum, was divided into four major branches, each of which had its own creed. In Rome, Chalcedonism was considered dominant, in Persia - Nestorianism, in Byzantium - Miaphysitism, and in parts of Gaul and Spain - Arianism. In the current situation, the most acceptable for the Armenian Church was the belief in the single nature of Christ, which existed among the Byzantines.
There were several reasons for this. Firstly, it almost completely corresponded to the faith of the Armenian Church itself, and secondly, unity in faith with Byzantium was more preferable for the Armenian Church than with any other. That is why at the council in Dvin in 506, which was attended by bishops from Georgia, Armenia and Albania, the confessional message of the emperor of Byzantium Zenon was officially accepted by the Armenian and other neighboring churches. At the same council, Nestorianism was once again condemned, and the decisions of the council in Chalcedon were assessed as a factor that contributes to its development.
In 518, the new emperor Julius came to power, who condemned the message of Zeno, proclaiming Chalcedona cathedral holy and ecumenical for all churches in the territory of the empire. Justinian, who became his successor, finally decided to eradicate the very concept of Monophysitism from the Greek churches. But by that time, the Armenian Church had already managed to free itself from his pressure, so the religion established in Chalcedon could no longer affect it.
Armenian Church
Categorically denying the Council of Chalcedon, the Armenian Church does not consider itself a heretic. As modern researchers and theologians note, the dogmas of faith only in theory should determine divinely revealed and theological truths, contain teachings about God and his dispensation, should turn into indisputable and unchanging provisions of faith. In practice, the interpretation of these same dogmas often leads to a kind of "crusades" in which one church opposes another. At the same time, they pursue only one goal - to assert their own influence and power.
Since then, after the adoption of each such dogma, a conscious departure from them, whether it be a different interpretation or complete rejection, is considered heresy, which leads to religious conflicts. The first three councils of 325, 381 and 431 did not cause controversy, all their decisions were adopted by representatives of all churches without exception. Moreover, it was on them that the Orthodox religion was finally and fully formulated. The first significant split occurred only after the Council of Chalcedon, held in 451.
Today, many theologians in Armenia believe that he becameserious threat to the unity of the Universal Church, turned into a weapon in the hands of the West, with the help of which the division was started not on religious, but on political grounds. At first, there were different opinions regarding this cathedral, but then Chalcedonism became a weapon and force to spread among all dissidents.
As a result, the Armenian Church has been accused of Monophysitism for many centuries. At the same time, it is worth noting that the Apostolic Armenian Church is one of the oldest in the Christian world, it has a number of features in ritual and dogma that distinguish it from both the Byzantine understanding of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. In past centuries, the Roman and Byzantine empires repeatedly tried to discredit the Armenian Church, trying to impose their own formulation of the nature of Jesus Christ on it. In fact, this was based on political motives, since Byzantium wanted to completely annex western Armenia, and then assimilate the local people. Under these conditions, only loy alty to one's church became the basis for the preservation of the Armenian people and their independence. At the same time, accusations of heresy directed at the Armenian Church continue to this day. For example, already from the Russian Orthodox Church.
If we consider in detail the dogmas adopted in Chalcedon, they emphasized that Christ distinguishes in himself two full-fledged natures, one of which is human, and the second is divine. At the same time, it emphasizes that Jesus has the same essence as all people, while both of his natures exist inseparably among themselves, one does not absorbanother. At the same time, the difference between them does not disappear through the connection, but is preserved by the feature of each nature, which converges into one hypostasis and face.
The Armenian Church did not recognize these dogmas, insisting that they contain mutually exclusive concepts, as well as confessions that do not correspond to apostolic traditions. The Armenian Church began to strictly follow the decisions of the first three Ecumenical Councils, seeing hidden Nestorianism in the wording adopted in Chalcedon.
According to this formula of dogma, Jesus is a perfect man and God. It combines these two essences in an inseparable way, which is incomprehensible to a person, impossible to realize by the mind.
In the tradition of Eastern theology in the essence of Jesus, any duality and division is rejected. It is believed that in it there is a single God-human nature. From the point of view of Eastern theologians, the decisions made in Chalcedon can be seen as a humiliation of the sacrament of the God-man, a conscious attempt to turn the contemplative understanding of faith into a mechanism perceived by the mind.
