Chalcedonian and non -chalcedonian

edited December 1969 in Coptic Orthodox Church
What are the real difference between Chalcedonian(greeks, russians, romanians...) and non -chalcedonian churchs(coptic, armenian , syriac or ethiopian...), I am syriac orthodox , and , as my coptic or armenian brothers in Christ, I am orthodox but not chalcedonian.
I know that the problem invoved the interpretation about christologic nature, what are the reasons of the misunderstanding of the Chalcedon Council(419?) ?

Comments

  • [quote author=ahikar link=board=4;threadid=4496;start=0#msg61941 date=1160512558]
    What are the real difference between Chalcedonian(greeks, russians, romanians...) and non -chalcedonian churchs(coptic, armenian , syriac or ethiopian...), I am syriac orthodox , and , as my coptic or armenian brothers in Christ, I am orthodox but not chalcedonian.
    I know that the problem invoved the interpretation about christologic nature, what are the reasons of the misunderstanding of the Chalcedon Council(419?) ?


    Shlomo,

    The Council of Chalcedon was held in 451. To cut a long story short, there was disagreement between the two sides regarding the term "two natures."

    Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria felt that it did not adequately preserve the unity of Christ's humanity and divinity.

    The supporters of the Council, particularly Pope St. Leo of Rome, however, felt that the term "two natures" was essential in preserving the faith against Eutychean monophysitism.

    This is not to say that Chalcedonians reject the Cyrillian term "One nature of the Logos Incarnate", which was upheld as Orthodox by the 2nd Council of Constantinople in 553.

    These were the theological concerns. However, politics were just as important. Leo's condemnation of Discoros; Dioscoros' condemnation of Leo; the Council's reaction to this by condemning Dioscoros; Leo's support for Theodoret; Dioscoros' support for Eutyches; anti-imperialist sentiments within Egypt; claims of Constantinople trying to up its political power; claims of Rome trying to enforce papal claims, etc, etc, etc.

    Its a pretty complicated matter to say the least.

    In recent meetings between the two Churches, their respective leaders have declared that the other side is wholly Orthodox with respect to Christology.

    I also know that the Antiochian and Syriac churches are in something of a quasi-communion. Bishops may not concelebrate, but priests may in certain cirumstances. Also, one church will be expected to cater for the needs (including Holy Communion) of believers from the other side where they cannot be catered for there - i.e. if a Syriac Christian lives in a town with no Syriac church, he can commune in an Antiochian one and vice-versa.

    Also, the Coptic and Greek Patriarchates of Alexandria have agreed to recognise eachothers marrage services as valid. This also entails that all sacraments can be administered by both churches to those in such an inter-marriage.

    So the rift is slowly beginning to heal. God willing, it won't take too long.

    Other differences are merely related to cultural expressions, which vary as much within the respective communions as they do between them (music, language, vestments, etc.).

    Then, of course, there are Saints. This is a bigger problem. For example, Chalcedonians revere Pope St. Leo as a Saint, whilst non-Chalcedonians revere people like Samuel the Confessor, who was vehemently against Leo and accused him of heresy.
  • To cut a long story even shorter, Chalcedonians were Nestorians between 451 a.d. and 553 a.d., for they accepted a heretical Tome of Leo of Rome, which is nothing but pure blasphemy, accepted an open heretic like Theodret as a member in the council and even one of the synodal faith committee who issues the faith statements on behalf of the council, and defacto accepted the heresies of Leo the heretic like Papal Supremacy and Infallability. The council accepted what is called the Three chapters, which is the writings of confirmed Nestorians like Theodore, Ibas and Theodret, which are nothing but pure heresy.

    To draw a comparison between Leo's relation to Theodret, and St. Dioscoros relation to Eutychus, is absurd and fits well the Chalcedonian agenda of mispresenting the truth.

    First, what exactly is the heresy that Eutychus taught ? When was it a danger and when did he give a formula for his faith that is clearly a heresy ? There is no hard evidence to convict Eutychus of the monophysite heresy that the Chalcedonian invented as a counter attack to what is a very weak position of the council.

    Second, St.Dioscoros never accepted Eutychus when he was excommunicated under the council of Constantinople 448, although it was one made of clowns and heretics. Only after the holy synod in 449 a.d. was summoned and the heretics of the likes of Flavian and Eusebius as well as Theodret were condemned and Eutychus presented a sound statement of faith was he accepted back in communion. This is the work of a holy Pope like St.Dioscoros, who did never break any church canon and cannot be convicted by association with Eutychus.

    As for Leo and Theodret, Leo is the Father of the heresy of Papal SUpremacy and did not view himself as subordinate to any council, he viewed himself as above the Church and as such did not pay respect the holy decisions of the council of Ephesus 449 that excommunicated Theodret. He accepted a heretic back into communion without any repentance of Thedoret.

    Leo knew all along that Theodret was a heretic, for after the council of Chalcedon, he sent to him rebuking him for not accepting to anathemize Nestorius. This does not make Leo orthodox, for the Tome is full of Nestorianism but in another level.

    Chalcedon was a council of thugs and heretics.
  • I know this is a very complicated subject, and i also know that the Tome of Leo was one of the major issues.
    So to have more firsthand information, in order to have a sound view - can we post the Tome of Leo for instance, and examine/discuss it (especially the so called nestorian parts)??
    I'm curious what's written in this Tome in the first place!!
    Its crucial to understand whats not orthodox about the Tome, in order to understand the correct faith.
    Anyone agree?
  • [quote author=Hos Erof link=board=4;threadid=4496;start=0#msg61958 date=1160521277]can we post the Tome of Leo for instance, and examine/discuss it (especially the so called nestorian parts)??

    http://www.orthodoxunity.org/document01.html
  • Thanks, i'll try to find time to read it the coming days!
  • any sources on the council accepting the three chapters?I was in a debate with a chalcedonian and showed him where ibas's letter was accepted and he said it wasn't the letter to mari!
  • The Acts of Chalcedon clearly show that Ibas was reinstated when the council reviewed his letter. It was this specific letter that got Ibas excommunicated in Ephesus II. However, Chalcedon simply stated something along the lines of "we have read the letter of Ibas. We consider him Orthodox." It never stated which letter, nor if they found Ibas Orthodox or if they found the letter Orthodox. Too much intentional ambiguity.

    In addition, no one really knows who Mari is. Since there is so much speculation about the letter, the authenticity of the letter as being attributed to Ibas is also questioned. Put these facts together, and it is sort of logical to conclude that Ibas was reinstated because he was Orthodox not because he allegedly wrote a letter to someone no one knows. It's a dubious letter on many fronts. 

    This being said, however, our OO problems with Ibas is not limited to his letter. But that's a different topic. 
  • I haven't been able to read the entirety of the acts online unfortunately wich would show wether the letter was the one to mari by no doubt.

    what other strong reasons do we reject chalcedon?if the tome of leo could be interpreted in a orthodox manner why not accept it?did the council condemn the use of of two natures like fr.peter farrington wrote ?was it the reinstating of Theodoret?

    what is the strong case for rejecting chalcedon?
  • ''The council accepted what is called the Three chapters, which is the writings of confirmed Nestorians like Theodore, Ibas and Theodret, which are nothing but pure heresy.''I really need a source for this.is Stavro talking from his imagination?
  • 133. The most religious Bishop Ibas said: ‘Until he whispered in the
    ears of the most blessed John and received from him the written
    confession of faith which he sent by the most blessed Paul, we all held
    him to be a heretic; but after he accepted it, we were in communion: he
    communicated with us and we with him.’
    134. Samuel said: ‘The most devout bishop says this now in an attempt
    to correct his error. It is for us to prove that he called Cyril a heretic, and
    afterwards corrected himself and said, “Until he anathematized his
    chapters, he was a heretic”.’
    135. The most religious Bishop Ibas said: ‘I have no memory of an
    anathema; I followed the council of the Orient. Do you want written
    testimony? Produce written testimony. Do you want oral testimony?
    Produce oral testimony.’
    136. The most God-beloved bishops said: ‘If it transpires that after the
    death of the most blessed and holy Cyril the most religious Bishop Ibas
    called him a heretic and held him to be a heretic, prove it.’
    137. Maras said: ‘We can prove it.’94 …95
    The same hallowed secretary read out the following:
    93 Justinian attempted to argue that this implies a denial of the authenticity of his Letter to
    Mari the Persian, written after the accord of 433 and yet critical of Cyril; see Facundus, Defence
    of the Three Chapters 5.2.4.
    94 The bishops demand proof that Ibas called Cyril a heretic not merely after the
    reconciliation between the churches in 433 but after Cyril’s death in 444. But the real question
    is whether Ibas claimed that Cyril had been a heretic before 433 or followed the approved line
    that, once Cyril and the Orientals had come to a proper understanding of each other’s position,
    they realized that the charge of heresy had arisen only as a result of misunderstanding. It was
    Chalcedon2_09_10th session 294 9/29/05, 9:33 AM
    THE TENTH SESSION (BERYTUS 449) 295
    Translation of a letter written by the most devout Ibas bishop of the city
    of Edessa to Mari the Persian 96
    138. After the introduction – In brief we have endeavoured to make
    known to your lucid understanding, which by means of little discerns
    much, what happened before this and what has happened here now,
    knowing, in writing this to your religiousness, that through your pains
    there will become known to all those there97 our message that the
    scriptures given by God have not suffered any distortion. I shall begin
    my account with matters that you yourself know well.
    Since the time your religiousness was here, a controversy arose
    between those two men, Nestorius and Cyril, and they wrote harmful
    tracts against each other, which were a snare to those who heard them.
    For Nestorius asserted in his tracts, as your religiousness knows, that
    the blessed Mary is not Theotokos, with the result that he was thought by
    most people to share the heresy of Paul of Samosata, who asserted that
    Christ was a mere man. Meanwhile Cyril, in his desire to refute the
    tracts of Nestorius, slipped up and was found falling into the teaching of
    Apollinarius: for like him he also wrote that the very God the Word
    became man in such a way that there is no distinction between the
    therefore not unreasonable of Ibas’ accusers to produce Ibas’ Letter to Mari at this point, even
    though it was not directly relevant to the demand made by the bishops. It is not necessary to
    adopt Schwartz’s suggestion (ACO 2.1.3 p. xxv) that the accusers’ true response has been
    suppressed.
    95 Some omissions may be detected here. The secretary would not have read out the Letter
    to Mari without instructions from the bishops. In addition, this sentence is followed in the
    Greek MSS by the words
    νγνων,
    νγνωµεν,
    νγνω, a formula of verification that often
    follows a speech by the chairman at Chalcedon (see II. 2n.): this implies, as Schwartz observes
    ad loc., that an interruption by the chairman in the reading of the minutes of Berytus was at first
    recorded and then omitted. More serious is the omission of any introduction to, or discussion of,
    the following letter. This all points to editorial suppressions at the time of the Three Chapters
    controversy, for which see pp. 271–2 above.
    96 This letter was written by Ibas, when still a presbyter, in the wake of the agreement
    between Cyril of Alexandria and the Syrian bishops expressed in the Formula of Reunion of
    433; for the events narrated here, see General Introduction, vol. 1, 18–24. Van Esbroeck 1987
    identifies Mari with a monk, probably a Persian refugee, of the Acoemete monastery at
    Constantinople; he sees this identification confirmed by the reference to ‘day and night’
    exercises at the end of the letter. But Syriac sources from the sixth century identified him with
    a bishop in the Persian empire (‘Mari’ simply means ‘my lord’), and the wording of the
    beginning of the letter suggests that he was living with his compatriots.
    97 Ibas’ letter was intended for wide circulation among the Christians of Persia, who indeed
    refused to follow the church in the Roman empire in condemning Nestorianism.
    Chalcedon2_09_10th session 295 9/29/05, 9:33 AM
    296 THE ACTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
    temple and the one who dwells in it. He wrote the Twelve Chapters, as I
    think your religiousness knows, asserting that there is one nature of the
    Godhead and the manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that it is
    wrong, he said, to divide the sayings that were uttered, whether those
    spoken by the Lord about himself or by the evangelists about him.98 How
    packed this is with every form of impiety, your holiness will know even
    before we say it. For how is it possible that ‘In the beginning was the
    Word’99 be taken to refer to the temple born from Mary, or that ‘You have
    made him a little less than the angels’100 should be said of the Godhead
    of the Only-begotten? What the church says, as your religiousness knows,
    and what has been taught from the beginning and confirmed by the
    divine teaching of the writings of the blessed fathers is this: two natures,
    one power, one person, who is the one Son and Lord Jesus Christ.
    Because of this controversy the victorious and pious emperors
    ordered the senior bishops to assemble in the city of Ephesus, so that the
    writings of Nestorius and Cyril could be judged in the presence of all.
    But before all the bishops who had been ordered to assemble had reached
    Ephesus, Cyril acted prematurely and pre-empted the hearing of all with
    a spell that could blind the eyes of the wise; he had as his motive his
    hatred for Nestorius. Even before the most holy and God-beloved
    Archbishop John arrived at the council, they deposed Nestorius from the
    episcopate, without there being a trial and investigation. Two days after
    his deposition we arrived at Ephesus. When we learnt that on the
    occasion of the deposition of Nestorius, carried out by them, they had
    also proclaimed and confirmed the Twelve Chapters composed by Cyril,
    which are contrary to the true faith, and expressed agreement with them
    as if they were in harmony with the true faith,101 all the bishops of the
    Orient deposed Cyril himself, and decreed a sentence of excommunication
    on the other bishops who had endorsed the Chapters. And after this
    chaos each returned to his own city; but Nestorius, since he was hated by
    his city and by the great men in it, was not able to return there.
    98 Ibas is citing the Third and Fourth Anathemas (or Chapters) appended to Cyril’s Third
    Letter to Nestorius (Select Letters, 28–31).
    99 Jn 1:1.
    100 Ps. 8:6, applied to Christ at Heb. 2:9.
    101 It is doubtful whether the Chapters were formally approved at the first session of
    Ephesus I, but they were immediately inserted into the minutes, and other sources confirm that
    the Oriental bishops, on their arrival, understood them to have been promulgated by the
    council. See de Halleux 1992, esp. 445–54.
    Chalcedon2_09_10th session 296 9/29/05, 9:33 AM
    THE TENTH SESSION (BERYTUS 449) 297
    The council of the Orient continued to refuse communion to those
    bishops who were in communion with Cyril. As a result there was much
    resentment among them, with bishops contending against bishops and
    congregations against congregations. The event fulfilled the words of
    scripture that ‘the foes of the man’ were ‘those of his own household’.102
    As a result much abuse was directed at us by both pagans and heretics;
    no one dared to travel from city to city or from region to region, but
    everyone persecuted his neighbour as if he were an enemy. Many who
    did not have the fear of God before their eyes, under the pretext of zeal
    for the churches, hastened to put into action the hidden hatred they had
    in their hearts. One of these happened to be the tyrant of our city,103 who
    is not unknown to you, who on the pretext of the faith avenged himself
    not only on the living but also on those who had formerly departed to the
    Lord. One of these was the blessed Theodore,104 the herald of the truth
    and teacher of the church, who not only in his lifetime compelled the
    heretics to accept his true faith but also after his death bequeathed to the
    children of the church a spiritual weapon in his writings, as your
    religiousness discovered from meeting him and became convinced on the
    basis of his writings. But the one of limitless effrontery had the effrontery
    to anathematize publicly in church the man who, out of zeal for God, not
    only converted his own city from error to the truth but also instructed far
    distant churches by his teaching. A great search was made everywhere
    for his books, not because they are contrary to the true faith – indeed,
    while he was alive, he constantly praised him and read his books –, but
    out of the secret hatred he had towards him, because he had publicly
    reproved him at the council.105
    While these evils were taking place, with each person, as it is
    written,106 wandering off on his own, the God we must worship, who in
    his mercy at all times looks after the church, moved the heart of our most
    faithful and victorious emperor to send a great and notable man from his
    102 Mt. 10:36.
    103 Bishop Rabbula of Edessa (412–35). He was initially a supporter of Theodore of
    Mopsuestia and Nestorius, but changed over to the side of Cyril immediately after Ephesus I.
    This was crucial in the steady process of the marginalization of the Antiochene School.
    104 Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428), the greatest of the Antiochene theologians, on whom
    see Young 1983, 199–213.
    105 According to Barhadbeshabba Arbaya, a Nestorian bishop writing c.600, Theodore had
    rebuked Rabbula at a council at Constantinople for beating one of his clerics (PO IV. 380–81).
    106 Perhaps a paraphrase of Joel 2:7, ‘Each man will journey on his own way.’
    Chalcedon2_09_10th session 297 9/29/05, 9:33 AM
    298 THE ACTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
    palace to require the lord John the most holy archbishop of the Orient107
    to be reconciled with Cyril, who had been deposed by him from the
    episcopate. After receiving the emperor’s letter, he sent the most holy
    and God-beloved Paul bishop of Emesa, recording through him the true
    faith, and instructing him to enter into communion with Cyril if he
    assented to this faith and anathematized those who say that the Godhead
    suffered and those who say that there is one nature of Godhead and
    manhood. And the Lord, who at all times looks after his church, which is
    redeemed by his blood, chose to soften even the heart of the Egyptian,108
    with the result that he assented to the faith without trouble and accepted
    it, and anathematized all those whose beliefs are contrary to it. Now that
    they were in communion with each other, controversy was removed from
    their midst, and peace returned to the church; no longer is there schism
    in it, but peace as before.109
    As for what are the words written by the most holy and God-beloved
    Archbishop John and the reply he received from Cyril, I have attached
    the letters themselves to this one to your religiousness and sent them to
    your sacredness, so that when you read them you may discover, and inform
    all our brethren who love peace, that controversy has now ceased, the
    dividing wall of enmity has been demolished,110 and that those who lawlessly
    assailed the living and the dead are shamefaced, apologizing for
    their errors and teaching the opposite of their previous teaching; for no
    one now dares to say that there is one nature of Godhead and manhood,
    but they profess belief in the temple and the one who dwells in it, who is
    the one Son Jesus Christ. This I have written to your religiousness out of
    the great affection I have for you, confident that your holiness exercises
    yourself day and night in the teaching of God, in order to benefit many.111
    107 Bishop John of Antioch (428–41/2). The official was the tribune and notary Aristolaus
    (PLRE 2, 146–7).
    108 Ibas is comparing Cyril to Pharaoh of Egypt, whose heart the Lord repeatedly hardened
    until finally he yielded and let the Israelites depart from Egypt (Exodus 7–12). Cf. the
    acclamation at Ephesus II with reference to Nestorius and Ibas, ‘Let none remain of the whole
    company of Pharaohs’ (Syriac Acts, trans. Perry, 125).
    109 For a full account of Paul’s mission, from the meeting at Antioch to the restoration of
    peace between Cyril and the Syrian bishops, see Kidd 1922, III, 256–62.
    110 Cf. Eph. 2:24. This echoes the opening of one of the letters Ibas is referring to, Cyril’s
    Letter to John of Antioch (see I. 246 for the full text).
    111 We do not know how the proceedings at Berytus/Tyre continued, except that they were
    clearly inconclusive and the judges decided to act as mediators rather than pronounce sentence
    as judges (IX. 7).
    Chalcedon2_09_10th session 298 9/29/05, 9:33 AM
    THE TENTH SESSION 299
    (Chalcedon)
    139. Ibas the most devout bishop said: ‘Let your clemency order that
    the letter from the clergy of Edessa be read, so that you may learn that I am
    a stranger to the charges brought against me and have suffered violence.’ 
  • 140. The most magnificent officials said: ‘Let the letter from the most devout clergy of Edessa be read.’ When it had been presented, Veronicianus the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory read: 141. A declaration and entreaty to the most God-beloved and sacred bishops Photius and Eustathius from all the clergy of the metropolis of Edessa.112 From many different people visiting us from Phoenice we have learnt of the doings of those who have risen up against the most God-beloved and sacred Bishop Ibas. We shuddered at the statement (for it surpasses what we have heard uttered by complete atheists, unbelievers, heretics, Jews and pagans) that the same our most God-beloved and sacred bishop said in the presence of all, ‘I don’t envy Christ having become God, since I too, if I want, can become like him.’ All of us who are alleged to have heard this statement make known to your God-belovedness, as in the presence of the merciful God, that neither from him nor from anyone else have we heard such a statement ever being made, nor did anything of the kind ever reach our ears. We anathematize ourselves and make ourselves liable to the horrors of hell if we know of any such remark by him or of any other contrary to the orthodox faith; and if after such a statement we were to tolerate being in communion or concelebrating with the one who made it, we would be liable to the most extreme penalty for participating in such an abomination. We beg and entreat your wisdom speedily to induce the same our most Godbeloved bishop to return to his flock, which is in danger of being scattered by all with no one able to guard it, especially since the saving feast of holy Easter is drawing near, when for catechetical instruction and for the sake of those deemed worthy of holy baptism there is need for his presence. We also request that this our declaration be inserted in the proceedings in the presence of your wisdom, so that it may escape the attention of no one. 112 At the hearing at Berytus minuted above, Uranius of Hemerium was one of the judges (see 28), but by the time of the final adjudication at Tyre (IX. 7) he had been dropped. This dates the present declaration to the time of the final proceedings at Tyre. It is to be distinguished from the testimonial presented on behalf of Ibas by some of his clergy at the Council of Antioch of 448, referred to at X. 106–9. Chalcedon2_09_10th session 299 9/29/05, 9:33 AM 300 THE ACTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON And the signatures (1) Phecidas, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (2) Ursicinus, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (3) Eulogius, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (4) Libanius, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (5) Rhodo, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (6) Leontius, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (7) Miccalus, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (8) Eusebius, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (9) Basil, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (10) Abramius, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (11) Patroïnus, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (12) Arsenius, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (13) Bassus, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (14) Strategius, presbyter: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac.113 (15) Sabbatius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (16) Nicias, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (17) Martyrius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (18) Eulogius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (19) Sabas, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. 113 Half the Latin MSS add a second presbyter Leontius after this name. Chalcedon2_09_10th session 300 9/29/05, 9:33 AM THE TENTH SESSION 301 (20) James, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (21) Cyrus [son] of Leontius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (22) Aphremius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (23) Patricius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (24) Acacius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (25) Isaacius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (26) Sabas, deacon, called the Physician: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (27) Eusebius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (28) Cyril, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (29) Abramius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (30) Lucian, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (31) Abramius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (32) Anysius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (33) Habib, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (34) Andrew, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (35) Arbius, deacon: I have written on request on behalf of the most devout deacon Hypatius who professes to have made this declaration together with colleagues. (36) Dadoës, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (37) Habib, deacon: I have written on request on behalf of the most devout deacon Valentinus because he was not able – and the signature in Syriac. (38) Eusebius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (
  • 39) Eulogius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues, standing by it till death. (40) Abramius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. Chalcedon2_09_10th session 301 9/29/05, 9:33 AM 302 THE ACTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (41) Romanus, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (42) Paul, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (43) Paul, deacon: I have written on request on behalf of the deacon Maras who has made this declaration together with colleagues. (44) Cyril, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (45) Caesarius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (46) Apeneüs, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (47) Marones, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (48) Phecidas, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (49) John, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (50) Gerontius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (51) Agapius, deacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (52) Adelphius, subdeacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (53) Sabas, subdeacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (54) Bassus, subdeacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (55) Restitutus, subdeacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues, standing by it till death. (56) Cyrus, subdeacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (57) Restitutus, subdeacon: I have written on request on behalf of the subdeacon Habib who has made this declaration together with colleagues. (58) Thomas, subdeacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (59) Bassus, subdeacon: I have written on request on behalf of the lector Habib who professes to have made this declaration together with colleagues. (60) Adelphius, subdeacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues. (61) Euphrasius, subdeacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. Chalcedon2_09_10th session 302 9/29/05, 9:33 AM THE TENTH SESSION 303 (62) Romulus, subdeacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (63) Eusebius, subdeacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (64) Poemenius, subdeacon: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. (65) Theophilus, lector: I have made this declaration together with colleagues – and the signature in Syriac. 142. Theophilus the deacon said: ‘I have something to ask you. The one who brought this declaration (I don’t know the name of the deacon who brought it) after he was expelled from there, did he not testify before all the clergy that I had altered the wording in order to please the bishop? And afterwards a report was received from the whole city, and that wording comes in the report. Order inquiry to be made if the deacon has not testified that I altered the wording; he sent him from Berytus.’114 143. The most magnificent officials said: ‘What has been read is clear. But so that nothing may be omitted from what needs to be rightly judged, let there be read the final proceedings at Ephesus concerning the most devout Ibas.’115 144. Paschasinus, Lucentius and Julian the most devout bishops and Boniface presbyter of the apostolic see said through Paschasinus: ‘A council where those lawless crimes were read out cannot be approved, and for this reason it is clearly pointless to read out the proceedings there. If all the proceedings there have been made null by the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the city of Rome, it is manifest that the most holy bishop of the church of Antioch is exempt from them, since the most blessed bishop subsequently received him into his own communion.116 It is indeed imperative that we also petition the most mild and Christian emperor to decree in a sacred law of his own that this council is not even to be named.’ 114 The issue is the wording of the unorthodox statement alleged to have been made by Ibas, ‘I don’t envy Christ becoming God.’ For the variant versions, see p. 266 above, with n. 6. The report in question is that of the inquiry conducted by Count Chaereas in April 449 (for which see General Introduction, vol. 1, 34). 115 These minutes are contained in the Syriac Acts (trans. Perry, 28–147). They consist largely of a reading of the hearing before Chaereas and conclude with Ibas’ condemnation. 116 The one snag in rescinding the decrees of Ephesus was that this cast doubt on the lawfulness of the election of Maximus to the see of Antioch, which followed on the decree of Ephesus deposing his predecessor Domnus. Paschasinus is arguing that, by accepting Maximus into communion, Pope Leo had implicitly approved his election and Domnus’ deposition. Chalcedon2_09_10th session 303 9/29/05, 9:33 AM 304 THE ACTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 145. Anatolius the most devout archbishop of Constantinople Rome said: ‘The late proceedings at Ephesus were instantly overturned, specially from the time when after this they received a correction that was very fine and pleasing to God. I therefore declare that none of the proceedings of that so-called council are to have force, except those regarding the most sacred Bishop Maximus at very great Antioch, since even the most holy Leo Bishop of Rome received him into communion and pronounced that he should govern the church of Antioch. Following this decree, I myself and the entire holy council here present have approved it,117 and I therefore request our most pious and Christ-loving emperor to enact by a pious decree that the council that met at Ephesus after the first one is not to be mentioned and that none of its proceedings are to have force.’ 146. Juvenal the most devout bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘What is pleasing to our most pious emperor on this matter, let his God-beloved authority decree.’ 147. Thalassius the most devout bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said: ‘I too am of the same opinion as the most God-beloved and sacred Bishop Juvenal.’ 148. Eusebius the most devout bishop of Ancyra in Galatia said: ‘My opinion and my verdict on this matter are in harmony with those of the most sacred Bishop Juvenal.’ 149. Stephen the most devout bishop of Ephesus said: ‘I too judge that what was done contrary to the canons in the metropolis of Ephesus should be overturned, apart from the proceedings relating to Domnus bishop of Antioch, since the canonical election of the most God-beloved Bishop Maximus in his place in the metropolis of Antioch has been accepted by the most sacred Archbishop Leo and by the present holy and ecumenical council.’ 150. Peter the most devout bishop of Corinth said: ‘I did not strip him of priesthood, since I did not take part in the council at Ephesus, and I follow the declaration of the representatives of the apostolic see and of the most holy Archbishop Anatolius.’ 151. Diogenes the most devout bishop of Cyzicus said: ‘I too agree with the most sacred archbishops.’ 117 The council had implicitly approved Maximus’ election, especially at Session VII where it approved his compromise with Juvenal of Jerusalem over the boundaries of the patriarchate of Jerusalem. Anatolius does not mention the fact that it was he himself who had consecrated Maximus, for which see Pope Leo’s comment in ep. 106 (Documents before the Council 9). Chalcedon2_09_10th session 304 9/29/05, 9:33 AM THE TENTH SESSION 305 152. John the most devout bishop of Sebasteia said: ‘I too pronounce in agreement with the most God-beloved and holy Bishop Juvenal, entrusting everything to the authority of the most pious and Christ-loving emperor.’ 153. Constantine the most devout bishop of Bostra said: ‘I too assent to the declarations of the fathers.’ 154. Theodore the most devout bishop of Damascus said: ‘I too agree with all the just and sacred decrees of the fathers.’ 155. Critonianus the most devout bishop {of Aphrodisias said: ‘I too assent to the decrees of the holy fathers.’ 156. Romanus the most devout bishop}118 of Myra in Lycia said: ‘Everything our most pious and Christ-loving emperors have decreed concerning the so-called but spurious council we also readily accept.’ 157. Eunomius the most devout bishop of Nicomedia said: ‘Whatever the holy council decides about the proceedings at Ephesus is pleasing to me also.’ 158. Cecropius the most devout bishop of Sebastopolis said: ‘We ought not to mention that council.’ 159. All the most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We all say the same.’ 160. Since therefore the former proceedings at Ephesus were no longer read, the most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Let the holy council express its pleasure concerning the most devout Ibas.’ 161. Paschasinus and Lucentius the most devout bishops and Boniface the presbyter, representing the apostolic see, said through Paschasinus: ‘Now that the documents have been read, we know from the verdict of the most devout bishops that the most devout Ibas has been proved innocent, and from the reading of his letter we have found him to be orthodox.119 We therefore decree that both the honour of the episcopate and the church from which he was unjustly ejected in his absence should be restored to him. As for the most holy Bishop Nonnus who occupied his place for a short time, it is for the most devout bishop of the church of Antioch to decide what ought to be decreed about the matter.’120 118 Supplied from the Latin version. 119 The ‘verdict of the bishops’ is that of Photius and Eustathius at Tyre (IX. 7), a compromise that was in fact far from a declaration of Ibas’ innocence. Only Maximus of Antioch (163) follows Paschasinus in commending the orthodoxy of the Letter to Mari. Diepen 1953, 103–4 suggests that Paschasinus commended the letter because he had not understood it; it is a moot point to what extent the Roman delegates (apart from the bilingual Julian of Cos) could follow in detail the proceedings of the council. 120 Facundus, Defence of the Three Chapters 5.1.2 gives a Latin version of much of this verdict that is different from that in the Latin Acts and is judged by Schwartz to be the original wording. The Greek version is entirely faithful. Chalcedon2_09_10th session 305 9/29/05, 9:33 AM 306 THE ACTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 162. Anatolius the most devout bishop of Constantinople Rome said: ‘The good faith of the most God-beloved bishops who sat in judgement and the reading of all the accompanying material prove the most devout Ibas innocent of the accusations brought against him. Therefore I shall now put aside all suspicion of him, since he has agreed and subscribed to the definition concerning the faith now issued by the holy council and to the letter of the most sacred Leo archbishop of Rome; and I judge him worthy of the episcopate and to take charge of the church where he was previously. As for the most devout Bishop Nonnus, the most devout Maximus bishop of Antioch will issue a decree.’ 163. Maximus the most devout bishop of the city of Antioch said: ‘From what has just been read it has become clear that the most devout Ibas is guiltless of everything charged against him; and from the reading of the transcript of the letter produced by his adversary his writing has been seen to be orthodox. I therefore decree that he is to recover the dignity of the episcopate and his own city, as has been resolved by the most sacred archbishops representing the most sacred Archbishop Leo and by the most sacred Anatolius archbishop of the imperial city. Clearly the most God-beloved Bishop Nonnus who replaced him should retain the same dignity of the episcopate so that I with the most God-beloved bishops of the diocese121 may come to a decision about him.’ 164.122 Juvenal the most devout bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘Divine Scripture orders the receiving back of those who repent, which is why we also receive people from heresy. I therefore resolve that the most devout Ibas should receive clemency, also because he is elderly, so as to retain episcopal dignity, being orthodox.’ it is clear that the bishop approved the letter by his adversary and declared it orthodox!...
  • Maras did indeed read out the letter to maris in the acts!!!!163. Maximus the most devout bishop of the city of Antioch said:
    ‘From what has just been read it has become clear that the most devout Ibas
    is guiltless of everything charged against him; and from the reading of the
    transcript of the letter  PRODUCED BY HIS ADVERSARY his writing has been seen to
    be orthodox. I therefore decree that he is to recover the dignity of the episcopate
    and his own city, as has been resolved by the most sacred archbishops
    representing the most sacred Archbishop Leo and by the most sacred
    Anatolius archbishop of the imperial city. Clearly the most God-beloved
    Bishop Nonnus who replaced him should retain the same dignity of the
    episcopate so that I with the most God-beloved bishops of the diocese121
    may come to a decision about him.’

    Maras read out the blasphemous letter and this bishop declared it orthodox!
Sign In or Register to comment.