Council of Chalcedon

==Acceptance==
[[File:Christological spectrum-o2p.svg|thumb|400px|Spectrum of Christological views in late antiquity]]
The [[dogmatic definition]]s of the council are recognized as normative by the [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox]] and [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] Churches, as well by certain other [[Western Christianity|Western Churches]]; also, most [[Protestantism|Protestants]] agree that the council's teachings regarding the [[Trinity]] and the [[Incarnation#Christianity|Incarnation]] are orthodox doctrine which must be adhered to. The council, however, is rejected by the [[Oriental Orthodoxy|Oriental Orthodox Churches]], the latter teaching rather that "The Lord Jesus Christ is God the Incarnate [[Logos (Christianity)|Word]]. He possesses the perfect Godhead and the perfect manhood. His fully divine nature is united with His fully human nature yet without mixing, blending or alteration."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=733&catid=270 |title=Questions and Answers by His Grace Bishop Youssef |work=suscopts |access-date=2014-06-10}}</ref> The Oriental Orthodox contend that this latter teaching has been misunderstood as [[monophysitism]], an appellation with which they strongly disagree but, nevertheless, refuse to accept the decrees of the council.

Many [[Anglican]]s and most [[Protestantism|Protestants]] consider it to be the last authoritative ecumenical council.<ref name="Armentrout">{{cite book|title=An Episcopal dictionary of the church|author1=Donald S. Armentrout|author2=Robert Boak Slocum|date=2005|isbn=0-89869-211-3 |page=81|publisher=Church Publishing Incorporated |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y_RpbmWNfHcC&q=Chalcedon+catholic+anglican+eastern&pg=PA81|access-date=2016-11-01}}</ref> These churches, along with [[Martin Luther]], hold that both conscience and scripture preempt doctrinal councils and generally agree that the conclusions of later councils were unsupported by or contradictory to scripture.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.learn.columbia.edu/ma/htm/sw/ma_sw_prim_ecumen_council.htm|title=Ecumenical Council|work=columbia.edu|access-date=2014-10-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141015021608/http://www.learn.columbia.edu/ma/htm/sw/ma_sw_prim_ecumen_council.htm|archive-date=2014-10-15|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Results===
The Council of Chalcedon issued the [[Chalcedonian Definition]], which repudiated the notion of a single nature in Christ, and declared that he has two natures in one person and [[hypostasis (philosophy and religion)|hypostasis]]. It also insisted on the completeness of his two natures: [[Godhead in Christianity|Godhead]] and manhood.{{sfn|Meyendorff|1989|pp=167–178}} The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In a further decree, later known as canon 28, the bishops declared that the [[Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople|See of Constantinople]] (New Rome) had the patriarchal status with "equal privileges" ("τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν" in Greek, "aequalibus privilegiis" in Latin) to the [[Holy See|See of Rome]].<ref name=":1">The canon in the original language can be seen here: https://earlychurchtexts.com/main/chalcedon/canons_of_chalcedon_03.shtml. English translation available here: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/chalcedon_canons.htm</ref><ref>Schwerin, Philip, [http://essays.wls.wels.net/bitstream/handle/123456789/3512/SchwerinBishop.pdf How the Bishop of Rome Assumed the Title of "Vicar of Christ"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170805133528/http://essays.wls.wels.net/bitstream/handle/123456789/3512/SchwerinBishop.pdf |date=2017-08-05 }}, p. 3, "Leo believed that in him was the voice of Peter. The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451 declared that Constantinople had the same patriarchal status as Rome (28th canon), a statement with which Leo never agreed, and which he even tried to declare invalid. When Leo tried to reinstate a defrocked French bishop, St. Hilary who presided over the Gallican Church as Supreme Pontiff, told Leo to keep his Roman nose out of French affairs. Leo's aspirations were strongly opposed, especially by the patriarch of Constantinople. Yet through him the papacy still gained some ground."</ref><ref name="Bokenkotter84">{{cite book |title=A Concise History of the Catholic Church |last=Bokenkotter |first=Thomas |year=2004 |page=[https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof00boke/page/84 84] |publisher=Doubleday |isbn=0-385-50584-1 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof00boke/page/84 }}</ref><ref name="Noble214">{{cite book | last1 = Noble| first1 = Thomas|last2=Strauss |first2= Barry |title=Western Civilization | year=2005|page=214| publisher = Houghton Mifflin Company|isbn=0-618-43277-9}}</ref> No reference was made in Canon 28 to the bishops of Rome or Constantinople having their authority from being successors to Peter or Andrew respectively. Instead, the stated reasons in the actual text of the Canon that the episcopacy of these cities had been granted their status was the importance of these cities as major cities of the empire of the time.<ref name=":1" />{{Efn|Canon 28: "[...] For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him."}}

===Confession of Chalcedon===
[[File:Nuremberg_chronicles_f_138r_1.jpg|thumb|Council of Chalcedon in the [[Nuremberg Chronicle]] ]]
{{Main article|Chalcedonian Definition}}
The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the two natures of Christ, human and divine:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/chalcedon/chalcedonian_definition.shtml |title=Chalcedonian Definition |website=Earlychurchtexts.com |access-date=2016-11-01}}</ref>

{{blockquote|We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – ''in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter'') the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (''prosopon'') and one Subsistence (''hypostasis''), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.}}

The full text of the definition reaffirms the decisions of the [[Council of Ephesus]] and the pre-eminence of the [[Nicene Creed|Creed of Nicea]] (325).{{Efn|Further definitions of the Council of Constantinople (381) can be found on [[wikisource:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Fourth Ecumenical Council/The Definition of Faith|Wikisource]].}} It also canonises as authoritative two of [[Cyril of Alexandria]]'s letters and the [[Tome of Leo]] written against [[Eutyches]] and sent to [[Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople]] in 449.

===Canons===
The work of the council was completed by a series of 30 disciplinary [[canon law|canons]], the Ancient [[Epitome]]s of which are:<ref name=SevenCouncils />
# The canons of every Synod of the holy Fathers shall be observed.
# Whoso buys or sells an ordination, down to a Prosmonarius, shall be in danger of losing his grade. Such shall also be the case with go-betweens, if they be clerics they shall be cut off from their rank, if laymen or monks, they shall be anathematized.
# Those who assume the care of secular houses should be corrected, unless perchance the law called them to the administration of those not yet come of age, from which there is no exemption. Unless further their Bishop permits them to take care of orphans and widows.
# Domestic oratories and monasteries are not to be erected contrary to the judgment of the bishop. Every monk must be subject to his bishop, and must not leave his house except at his suggestion. A slave, however, can not enter the monastic life without the consent of his master.
# Those who go from city to city shall be subject to the canon law on the subject.
# In Martyries and Monasteries ordinations are strictly forbidden. Should any one be ordained therein, his ordination shall be reputed of no effect.
# If any cleric or monk arrogantly affects the military or any other dignity, let him be cursed.
# Any clergyman in an almshouse or monastery must submit himself to the authority of the bishop of the city. But he who rebels against this let him pay the penalty.
# Litigious clerics shall be punished according to canon, if they despise the episcopal and resort to the secular tribunal. When a cleric has a contention with a bishop let him wait till the synod sits, and if a bishop have a contention with his metropolitan let him carry the case to Constantinople.
# No cleric shall be recorded on the clergy-list of the churches of two cities. But if he shall have strayed forth, let him be returned to his former place. But if he has been transferred, let him have no share in the affairs of his former church.
# Let the poor who stand in need of help make their journey with letters pacificatory and not commendatory: for letters commendatory should only be given to those who are open to suspicion.
# One province shall not be cut into two. Whoever shall do this shall be cast out of the episcopate. Such cities as are cut off by imperial rescript shall enjoy only the honour of having a bishop settled in them: but all the rights pertaining to the true metropolis shall be preserved.
# No cleric shall be received to communion in another city without a letter commendatory.
# A Cantor or Lector alien to the sound faith, if being then married, he shall have begotten children let him bring them to communion, if they had there been baptized. But if they had not yet been baptized they shall not be baptized afterwards by the heretics.
# No person shall be ordained deaconess except she be forty years of age. If she shall dishonour her ministry by contracting a marriage, let her be anathema.
# Monks or nuns shall not contract marriage, and if they do so let them be excommunicated.
# Village and rural parishes if they have been possessed for thirty years, they shall so continue. But if within that time, the matter shall be subject to adjudication. But if by the command of the Emperor a city be renewed, the order of ecclesiastical parishes shall follow the civil and public forms.
# Clerics and Monks, if they shall have dared to hold conventicles and to conspire against the bishop, shall be cast out of their rank.
# Twice each year the Synod shall be held wherever the bishop of the Metropolis shall designate, and all matters of pressing interest shall be determined.
# A clergyman of one city shall not be given a cure in another. But if he has been driven from his native place and shall go into another he shall be without blame. If any bishop receives clergymen from without his diocese he shall be excommunicated as well as the cleric he receives.
# A cleric or layman making charges rashly against his bishop shall not be received.
# Whoever seizes the goods of his deceased bishop shall be cast forth from his rank.
# Clerics or monks who spend much time at Constantinople contrary to the will of their bishop, and stir up seditions, shall be cast out of the city.
# A monastery erected with the consent of the bishop shall be immovable. And whatever pertains to it shall not be alienated. Whoever shall take upon him to do otherwise, shall not be held guiltless.
# Let the ordination of bishops be within three months: necessity however may make the time longer. But if anyone shall ordain counter to this decree, he shall be liable to punishment. The revenue shall remain with the œconomus.
# The œconomus in all churches must be chosen from the clergy. And the bishop who neglects to do this is not without blame.
# If a clergyman elope with a woman, let him be expelled from the Church. If a layman, let him be anathema. The same shall be the lot of any that assist him.
# The bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) shall enjoy the same privileges as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire. For this reason the [metropolitans] of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople.
# He is sacrilegious who degrades a bishop to the rank of a presbyter. For he that is guilty of crime is unworthy of the priesthood. But he that was deposed without cause, let him be [still] bishop.
# It is the custom of the Egyptians that none subscribe without the permission of their archbishop. Wherefore they are not to be blamed who did not subscribe the Epistle of the holy Leo until an archbishop had been appointed for them.

Canon 28 grants equal privileges (''{{lang|la|isa presbeia}}'') to Constantinople as of Rome because Constantinople is the [[New Rome]] as renewed by canon 36 of the [[Quinisext Council]]. [[Pope Leo I|Pope Leo]] declared the canon 28 null and void and only approved the canons of the council which were pertaining to faith.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm|title=Catholic Encyclopedia: Council of Chalcedon|website=www.newadvent.org|access-date=2018-12-07}}</ref><ref>Migne, Jacquies Paul, [https://books.google.com/books?id=9fgQAAAAYAAJ ''Patrologia Latina'', 54], 1038 & 1143</ref> Initially, the council indicated their understanding that Pope Leo's ratification was necessary for the canon to be binding,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kelly |first=Art |title=A Response to 'Evangelicals, Catholics, and Unity' |year=2004}}</ref> writing, 
"we have made still another enactment which we have deemed necessary for the maintenance of good order and discipline, and we are persuaded that your Holiness will approve and confirm our decree.... We are confident you will shed upon the Church of Constantinople a ray of that Apostolic splendor which you possess, for you have ever cherished this church, and you are not at all niggardly in imparting your riches to your children. … Vouchsafe then, most Holy and most Blessed Father, to accept what we have done in your name, and in a friendly spirit (hos oikeia te kai phila). For your legates have made a violent stand against it, desiring, no doubt, that this good deed should proceed, in the first instance, from your provident hand. But we, wishing to gratify the pious Christian emperors, and the illustrious Senate, and the capital of the empire, have judged that an Ecumenical Council was the fittest occasion for effecting this measure. Hence we have made bold to confirm the privileges of the afore-mentioned city (tharresantes ekurosamen) as if your holiness had taken the initiative, for we know how tenderly you love your children, and we feel that in honoring the child we have honored its parent.... We have informed you of everything with a view of proving our sincerity, and of obtaining for our labors your confirmation and consent."<ref>Opp. S. Leonis, Ep. 98. [23] Ep. 101. [24] Ep. 132. [25] Ep. 100. 232, http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/ui.htm</ref> Following Leo's rejection of the canon, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople conceded, "Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness."<ref>To Leo, Epistle 132</ref> However, the Canon has since been viewed as valid by the Eastern Orthodox Church.<ref>Ware, Kallistos, ''The Orthodox Church''. New Edition. Penguin Books. 1997. p. 26</ref>

According to some ancient Greek collections, canons 29 and 30 are attributed to the council: canon 29, which states that an unworthy bishop cannot be demoted but can be removed, is an extract from the minutes of the 19th session; canon 30, which grants the Egyptians time to consider their rejection of Leo's ''Tome'', is an extract from the minutes of the fourth session.<ref>''The Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils'', Vol. 1, ed. Norman P. Tanner, S.J. (1990), 75–76.</ref>

In all likelihood an official record of the proceedings was made either during the council itself or shortly afterwards. The assembled bishops informed the pope that a copy of all the "Acta" would be transmitted to him; in March, 453, Pope Leo commissioned Julian of Cos, then at Constantinople, to make a collection of all the Acts and translate them into Latin. Most of the documents, chiefly the minutes of the sessions, were written in Greek; others, e.g. the imperial letters, were issued in both languages; others, again, e.g. the papal letters, were written in Latin. Eventually nearly all of them were translated into both languages.<ref name=":0" />