The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, by V.C. Samuel
The next section of Samuel’s book continues to the Council of Chalcedon. But before pertaining to this, I want to examine the path so far. Something has actually been bubbling under my surface area, and I believe I can best express it by summarizing the occasions prior to Chalcedon.
Keep in mind a number of points: argument relating to the conclusions at Chalcedon in 451 resulted in the first, long-lasting (up until today) split in the Church (the more recent would be the split in 1054 in between East and West, and the Reformation beginning in 1517).
The non-Chalcedonian Churches consist of the Ethiopian, Coptic, Armenian, and others. These represent a little part of the Christian community (a minimum of some of these have accepted the better-clarified teachings on Christ’s nature in subsequent councils).
Secondly, the arguments leading up to Chalcedon fixated different views by Alexandria and Antioch relating to how to describe the nature of Christ. The argument between these two sees would play out throughout the time leading to Chalcedon.
From the earliest days after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, the advancement of teaching began its journey. We see conflicts even in the book of Acts, and disputes did not end with the writing of the book of Discovery.
The disciples went to the 4 corners of the recognized world, even before they had actually any composed New Testament letters or Gospels. Teachings were passed on orally, each, no doubt carrying understandings that in some ways were special to each disciples’ views. I picture that regional customized and culture likewise influenced how the teaching was understood.
On a much better understanding of the nature of Christ, while the concern wasn’t rather settled till Chalcedon, the essence of the teaching can be discovered in the Scriptures and in the earliest Church daddies.
Now, for a quick summary of the events leading to Chalcedon:
Nestorius commanded the see of Constantinople from 428 to 431. He was condemned as a heretic by the Council of Ephesus in 431 for teaching the “foul doctrine” of two Kids. Nestorius insisted this was not his teaching, rather utilizing the term prosopon to explain his views. The council, presided over by Cyril of Alexandria, was held prior to the Syrian (Antiochene) delegation might show up.
On the Alexandrine and Antiochene positions: Those representing Antioch were not in full agreement with the positions taken in Ephesus in 431, and opposed to them were those from Alexandria. Externally this issue was solved by the reunion of Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch in 433.
However the reunion was understood in a different way by those in the 2 camps. This different understanding would cause more controversies and troubles– especially after John’s death. There is something worth noting here: the differences were so nuanced that even a composed exchange in between the leaders of these 2 centers of Christendom could be understood differently.
The severe opposition to Nestorius exposed another heresy, that of Eutyches, an abbot in Constantinople, who kept that Godhead and manhood were so unified in Christ that after the union the manhood ended up being soaked up in the Godhead.
He was condemned in a synod held by Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, in 448. Eutyches, nevertheless, thought he would be producing brand-new teaching if he consented to the statements provided by Flavian.
Dioscorus of Alexandria, wanting to control the see of Constantinople, took advantage of Eutyches’ incredible support in the city and area and in 449 condemned as heretics many of those who condemned Eutyches. Amongst these were the patriarch Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylaeum.
At Chalcedon in 451, Eutyches was again condemned and Dioscorus was deposed. The council of 448 was validated, and the council of 449 was deemed indefensible. Chalcedon was contacted a manner that would diminish Alexandria in favor of Constantinople. As much as it was necessary to try to solve this issue of how best to describe Christ’s nature, it was, therefore, also a political council.
What is my point in all this?
Factions, political intrigue, muscle-flexing, developing authority. I do not write this to recommend that the Holy Spirit was not at work in these councils. However, I do recommend that His work still had to be performed by means of extremely imperfect human beings. And these imperfect people– bishops and so forth– carried the exact same defects that we all do.
I have long fought with the technique utilized by many apologists for their particular custom of Christianity– Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike. It is the approach of taking down the other. It exists as if “ours is the one real Church.” And Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all make such statements.
Sometimes, you are considered not in Christ’s Church if you are not in my tradition. This for Christians who accept the Trinity and have actually been baptized in the name of the Dad, Kid, and Holy Spirit. This for Christians who see Christ’s death and resurrection as attending to redemption (in some manner, with some a little different understandings).
But we see here, in events leading up to this earliest split, that males of goodwill disagreed, which choices were made based upon which faction managed the council. And where I am, for that reason, most troubled, is by the claims of historic pureness by lots of in the Eastern Orthodox– due to the fact that apologists for this tradition declare the whole field (typically in a happy and big-headed manner) of being truest to the early Church.
This tradition has actually had, in numerous ways, a free trip in the West. We all understand the Catholic-Protestant divide extremely well: the arguments, the history, the heresies (in the view of one or the other), the corruptions, etc.
We understand little of these same things when it concerns the Eastern Church. It is for this factor that I am going through this book, and it is likewise for this factor that I have a book waiting on my shelf relating to middle ages Byzantium. The details of this history are unidentified to me, and are fairly unknown in the West.
This is one reason, I believe, that those who promote for the Eastern Church are viewed as effective today– the unknown doesn’t get in the way of the great parts of the tradition. This is not to state I am somehow versus this Church or this tradition. I have found great blessing when going to an Orthodox liturgy.
Conclusion
Just as is true for Catholic and Protestant traditions, I suspect the Eastern Church has numerous warts. And, frankly, I am tired of hearing from supporters for this Church that there are none. But I am most sick of the conceit– and even spite– that originates from some from within this custom when resolving anything from any other Christian custom.
Which is what has been bubbling under my surface area.
But I do not evaluate any Christian tradition by the worst examples of its adherents or its practices. Much better to take a look at the very best of its doctrines, the very best of its fruits. And in this, all traditions show examples of the love of Christ in this world.