Council of Chalcedon

==Convocation and session==
[[File:Четвертый Вселенский Собор.jpg|thumb|Council of Chalcedon, fresco at [[Ferapontov Monastery]], c. 1502]]

The situation continued to deteriorate, with Leo demanding the convocation of a new council and Emperor Theodosius II refusing to budge, all the while appointing bishops in agreement with Dioscorus. All this changed dramatically with the Emperor's death and the elevation of [[Marcian]] to the imperial throne. To resolve the simmering tensions, Marcian announced his intention to hold a new council to set aside the 449 [[Second Council of Ephesus]] which was named the "Latrocinium"<ref>Cross, F.L.; Livingstone, E.A., eds. (1974). "''Latrocinium''". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press</ref> or "Robber Council" by Pope Leo. [[Pulcheria]], the sister of Theodosius, may have influenced this decision, or even made the convention of a council a requirement during her negotiations with [[Aspar]], the [[magister militum]], to marry Marcian.

Leo had pressed for it to take place in [[Italy]], but Emperor Marcian instead called for it to convene at Chalcedon, because it was closer to Constantinople, and would thus allow him to respond quickly to any events along the Danube, which was being raided by the Huns under Attila.

The council opened on 8 October 451. Marcian had the bishops deposed by Dioscorus returned to their dioceses and had the body of Flavian brought to the capital to be buried honorably. The Emperor asked Leo to preside over the council, but Leo again chose to send legates in his place. This time, Bishops Paschasinus of [[Lilybaeum]] and Julian of Cos and two priests Boniface and Basil represented the western church at the council. The council was attended by about 520 bishops or their representatives and was the largest and best-documented of the [[First seven Ecumenical Councils#The Councils|first seven ecumenical councils]].<ref name=Britannica>{{cite web|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Council-of-Chalcedon |title=Council of Chalcedon &#124; Christianity |website=Britannica.com |date=1955-04-15 |access-date=2016-11-01}}</ref> All the sessions were held in the church of [[St. Euphemia]], Martyr, outside the city and directly opposite Constantinople. As to the number of sessions held by the Council of Chalcedon there is a great discrepancy in the various texts of the Acts, also in the ancient historians of the council. Either the respective manuscripts must have been incomplete; or the historians passed over in silence several sessions held for secondary purposes. According to the deacon Rusticus, there were in all sixteen sessions; this division is commonly accepted by scholars, including [[Karl Josef von Hefele]], historian of the councils. If all the separate meetings were counted, there would be twenty-one sessions; several of these meetings, however, are considered as supplementary to preceding sessions.<ref name="Schaefer">[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm Schaefer, Francis. "Council of Chalcedon." The Catholic Encyclopedia] Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 8 February 2019</ref>

Paschasinus refused to give Dioscorus (who had excommunicated Leo leading up to the council) a seat at the council. As a result, he was moved to the nave of the church. Paschasinus further ordered the reinstatement of Theodoret and that he be given a seat, but this move caused such an uproar among the council fathers, that Theodoret also sat in the nave, though he was given a vote in the proceedings, which began with a trial of Dioscorus.

Marcian wished to bring proceedings to a speedy end, and asked the council to make a pronouncement on the doctrine of the Incarnation before continuing the trial. The council fathers, however, felt that no new creed was necessary, and that the doctrine had been laid out clearly in Leo's Tome.<ref name=SevenCouncils /> They were also hesitant to write a new creed as the [[Council of Ephesus|First Council of Ephesus]] had forbidden the composition or use of any new creed. Aetius, deacon of Constantinople then read Cyril's letter to Nestorius, and a second letter to John of Antioch. The bishops responded, "We all so believe: Pope Leo thus believes ... we all thus believe. As Cyril so believe we, all of us: eternal be the memory of Cyril: as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has been our faith: such is our faith: this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he believes, so he has written."<ref name="sourcebook">{{Cite web|url=https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/chalcedon.asp|title=Internet History Sourcebooks|website=sourcebooks.fordham.edu}}</ref>

Beronician, clerk of the consistory, then read from a book handed him by Aetius, the synodical letter of Leo to Flavian ([[Leo's Tome]]). After the reading of the letter, the bishops cried out: "This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. ...Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, ...This is the true faith...This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus?"<ref name=sourcebook/>

However, during the reading of Leo's Tome, three passages were challenged as being potentially Nestorian, and their orthodoxy was defended by using the writings of Cyril.<ref name="romanity.org">{{cite journal|author=John Romanides|title=St. CYRIL'S "ONE PHYSIS OR HYPOSTASIS OF GOD THE LOGOS INCARNATE" AND CHALCEDON|journal=Greek Orthodox Theological Review|volume=X|date=1964|url=http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm}}</ref> Due to such concerns, the council decided to adjourn and appoint a special committee to investigate the orthodoxy of Leo's Tome, judging it by the standard of Cyril's Twelve Chapters, as some of the bishops present raised concerns about their compatibility. This committee was headed by Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and was given five days to carefully study the matter. The committee unanimously decided in favor of the orthodoxy of Leo, determining that what he said was compatible with the teaching of Cyril. A number of other bishops also entered statements to the effect that they believed that Leo's Tome was not in contradiction with the teaching of Cyril as well.<ref name="romanity.org"/>

The council continued with Dioscorus' trial, but he refused to appear before the assembly. However, historical accounts from the Eastern Orthodox Church note that Dioscorus was put under solitary arrest. As a result, he was condemned, but by an underwhelming amount (more than half the bishops present for the previous sessions did not attend his condemnation), and all of his decrees were declared null. Empress Pulcheria (Marcian's wife) told Dioscorus "In my father's time, there was a man who was stubborn (referring to [[St. John Chrysostom]]) and you are aware of what was made of him", to which Dioscorus famously responded "And you may recall that your mother prayed at his tomb, as she was bleeding of sickness". Pulcheria is said to have slapped Dioscorus in the face, breaking some of his teeth, and ordered the guards to confine him, which they did pulling his beard hair. Dioscorus is said to have put these in a box and sent them back to his Church in Alexandria noting "this is the fruit of my faith."<ref>''History of the Coptic Church'', Father Menassa Yuhanna</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/Intro_to_the_Coptic_Church_fr_yacoub_malaty.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060622192628/http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/Intro_to_the_Coptic_Church_fr_yacoub_malaty.pdf |archive-date=2006-06-22 |url-status=live|title=Introduction to the Coptic Church|last=Tadros|first=Y. Malaty|year=1993|website=www.copticchurch.net|page=71|access-date=2018-12-07}}</ref> Marcian responded by exiling Dioscorus.

All of the bishops were then asked to sign their assent to the Tome, but a group of thirteen Egyptians refused, saying that they would assent to "the traditional faith". As a result, the Emperor's commissioners decided that a ''credo'' would indeed be necessary and presented a text to the fathers. No consensus was reached. Paschasinus threatened to return to Rome to reassemble the council in Italy. Marcian agreed, saying that if a clause were not added to the ''credo'', the bishops would have to relocate. The Committee then sat in the oratory of the most holy martyr Euphemis and afterwards reported a definition of faith which while teaching the same doctrine was not the Tome of Leo.<ref name="sourcebook"/>

Although it could be reconciled with Cyril's Formula of Reunion, it was not compatible in its wording with Cyril's Twelve Anathemas. In particular, the third anathema reads: "If anyone divides in the one Christ the [[Hypostasis (philosophy)|hypostases]] after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him be anathema." This appeared to some to be incompatible with Leo's definition of two natures [[Hypostatic union|hypostatically joined]]. However, the council would determine (with the exception of 13 Egyptian bishops) that this was an issue of wording and not of doctrine; a committee of bishops appointed to study the orthodoxy of the Tome using Cyril's letters (which included the twelve anathemas) as their criteria unanimously determined it to be orthodox, and the council, with few exceptions, supported this.{{clarify|reason=this is garbled, and what council is being talked about?|date=July 2012}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm#m7 |title=Orthodox And Oriental Orthodox Consultation |website=Romanity.org |access-date=2016-11-01}}</ref>

It approved the creed of Nicaea (325), the creed of Constantinople (381; subsequently known as the Nicene Creed), two letters of Cyril against Nestorius, which insisted on the unity of divine and human persons in Christ, and the Tome of Pope Leo I confirming two distinct natures in Christ.<ref name=Britannica/>