The Syrian Orthodox Church

By H.H. MOR IGNATIUS YACOUB III (1980+)

ITS POSITION CONCERNING THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

Theodosius II died in 450. His death altered at once the state of affairs. The new rulers Pulcheria and Marcian (who was elevated to the throne by marrying her), were as partial to Leo as they were hostile to Dioscorus, according to Dr. John Gieselr. Particularly, Marcian was an intimate friend and follower of Nestorius. Hence a new general council was held at Chalcedon in 451 at the request of Leo. This council accepted Hiba and Theodoret as members in it, without condemning their above mentioned writings, and declared as orthodox after his death Theodore bishop of Mopsuestia, master of nestorius and the founder of his heresy, and considered the Tome of Leo as the basis of the doctrine. Such was the failure of the orthodox doctrine which was victorious in the third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.

The council of Chalcedon acknowledged, besides that, the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Ephesus, and the two letters of Cyril to Nestorius and the Easterns. Our remarks concerning this , are the following : -

1- It is well known that the Nicene Creed and the Tome of Leo are contrary to each other. For the Creed has attributed the mighty and humble deeds of Jesus Christ to one who is the incarnate Word of God by saying : "Real God of Real God.... descended from heaven and was incarnate .... crucified and he suffered, died, and was buried, he arose and ascended to heaven....." . But the Tome has attributed the mighty deeds to the Godhead and the humble ones to the manhood. On this basis itself the council refused to maintain that One of the Holy Trinity suffered and was crucified, while St. Paul himself attributed the shedding of blood on the cross to God and called the crucified "The Lord of glory". The council of Chalcedon by this act was confirming the teachings of Nestorius who maintained that the crucified was merely a man and not God.

This resolution encouraged the Jewish people to declare in the street a statement directed to Marcian, saying that all in the past accused our forefathers as having crucified God and not a man, but now as the council of Chalcedon has declared that they crucified a man and not God, hence we request you to give us back our synagogues.".

2- It is also clear that the Formula of the Council of Ephesus maintained one nature for Christ after the union whereas the council of Chalcedon maintained two natures for Christ. Besides, it is evident that the council of Chalcedon refused the doctrine concerning the suffering and crucifixion of one of the Holy Trinity. Regarding the expression of Theotokos it was temporarily accepted, since it remained for about a hundred years as a subject of discussion between its followers. For example, in 468 the Emperor Leo I issued an edict, through which he ordered that our Lady must be called Theotokos and her name must be included in the "Deptecha". This edict was opposed by Martyr the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch. Some Antiochene monks proceeded to Constantinople where they complained against him to the Emperor , who deposed him. In the following century Agabit, Pope of Rome, was ready to cancel her commemoration, and to remove her picture from the church, but his death stopped him from doing so.

3- We do not know how the council of Chalcedon acknowledged the orthodoxy of St. Cyril of Alexandria, while it accused him indirectly to have maintained "one mixed nature for the manhood and Godhead of Christ, and the suffering of the Divine nature", just as Nestorius, Hiba and Theodoret did before, whereas it is well known that this is the teaching of a heretic called Eutyches, who appeared after the death of St. Cyril and defended his teachings, but failed to follow him in the true path. It is true that St. Cyril maintained that the person who was crucified and who suffered was the incarnate Word of God, that is, one of the Holy Trinity in manhood. Dr. John Gieseler says : "Cyril too, for the purpose of sparing the Egyptians, was declared orthodox". "How little convinced the prevailing party of Cyril's orthodoxy is clear from the fact that Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople after 453, wrote against his 12 anathemas". Really, they were not convinced of Cyril's orthodoxy. That is why Calandiun, the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch, called him in his letters "Foolish". Morevoer, Emperor Justinian I himself failed in the following century, while trying with the help of the famous theologian Leontius to reconcile between the doctrine of Cyril and that of the council of Chalcedon.

From this we can summarise that the members of the council of Chalcedon not only failed to reject the heresy of Nestorius but they also succeeded in acknowledging it, though they pretended to have excommunicated its master. Had Nestorius not died before the council he would have attended it like his relatives and followers Hiba of Edessa and Theodoret of Cyrus. That is why Stephanus I, the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch, the Euphemius of Constantinople were afterwards enthusiastic towards Nestorianism, and Macdon of Constantinople celebrated annually Nestorius feast along with a thousand monks of the monasteries of Constantinople who were accustomed to read the writings of Diodore and Theodore. So also Paul, the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch, celebrated nestorius' feast.

Although the council acknowledged the teachings of Nestorius it agreed with Cyril's teachings concerning the one compound person. But its followers in the following centuries neglected them and maintained only one Divine and simple person in Christ.

© 1995 - 2008 Syrian Orthodox Church

WEB MASTERS