Council Of Chalcedon

The Council of Chalcedon was the fourth ecumenical council of the Christian Church, convened in October 451 AD in the city of Chalcedon (modern Kadıköy, Turkey). The council was principally called to resolve the persistent Christological controversies that followed the First Council of Ephesus (431 AD), particularly those concerning the dual nature of Jesus Christ. The council’s primary output was the “Definition of Chalcedon,” a doctrinal statement affirming that Christ exists in two natures, divine and human, united “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation” in one $\text{hypostasis}$ (person). This definition marked a definitive theological division within Christianity, leading directly to the separation of the Miaphysitism-adhering churches, which subsequently formed the Oriental Orthodox Communion, from the mainstream churches that accepted the Chalcedonian settlement.

Historical Context and Precursors

The period leading up to Chalcedon was characterized by intense theological friction, largely stemming from the legacy of Nestorianism and the preceding Council of Ephesus. While Ephesus had condemned Nestorius, the precise theological language needed to articulate the union of the divine and human in Christ remained elusive.

The Monophysite Controversy

A critical immediate precursor to the council was the rise of Monophysitism (often interchangeably, though sometimes inaccurately, referred to as extreme Miaphysitism in contemporary dialogue), most prominently championed by the Archimandrite Eutyches of Constantinople. Eutyches argued that after the Incarnation, Christ possessed only one nature—the divine nature—into which the human nature was completely absorbed, like a drop of honey in the ocean. This view was seen by many bishops, particularly those aligned with the Antiochene school and the Alexandrian legacy of Cyril of Alexandria (albeit interpreting Cyril differently than Eutyches), as effectively denying the true humanity of Christ. Eutyches was initially condemned at the “Robber Synod” of Ephesus in 449 AD, an event later repudiated by the imperial authorities.

Convening and Imperial Authority

The council was summoned by the Eastern Roman Emperor Marcian and his consort, Empress Pulcheria, who sought to restore theological stability to the Empire following the tumultuous years under Emperor Theodosius II.

The council formally opened on October 8, 451 AD, with approximately 500 bishops in attendance, predominantly from the Eastern provinces. The Pope’s legates played a decisive, albeit sometimes overbearing, role in steering the proceedings. The Tome of Pope Leo I, a letter written by Pope Leo I in 449 AD addressing the nature of Christ, was eventually accepted as the authoritative foundation for the council’s doctrinal statement.

Doctrinal Formulation: The Definition of Chalcedon

The core achievement of the council was the articulation of the Christological Definition, which served as the orthodox standard for subsequent centuries. The Definition sought to synthesize the teachings of Cyril of Alexandria regarding the Logos and the Antiochene emphasis on the integrity of the two natures, while definitively rejecting both Nestorian separation and Eutychian confusion.

The Definition explicitly states that Christ is: $$\text{one person} (\text{hypostasis}) \text{in two natures} (\text{physes})$$

Crucially, the Definition utilized four key adverbs derived from earlier theological discourse, often attributed to the synthesis achieved in Pope Leo’s Tome:

Adverb	Greek Term	Meaning in Context
Without Confusion	$\alpha \sigma \upsilon \gamma \chi \tilde{\omega} \tau \omega \varsigma$	The natures do not blend or merge.
Without Change	$\alpha \tau \rho \varepsilon ́ \pi \tau \omega \varsigma$	Neither nature transforms into the other.
Without Division	$\alpha \delta \iota \alpha \iota \rho \varepsilon ́ \tau \omega \varsigma$	The union cannot be broken or separated.
Without Separation	$\alpha \chi \omega \rho \dot{\sigma} \sigma \tau \omega \varsigma$	The natures remain distinct within the single person.

It is notable that the Definition specifically endorses the use of the term Theotokos (“God-bearer”) for the Virgin Mary, thereby confirming the unity of the subject (the Logos) who acted both divinely and humanly.

The Role of the Hypostatic Union

The Chalcedonian formula established the hypostatic union as the standard formula. This union describes how the two natures subsist in the one Logos. The concept affirmed that the divine nature (fully God) and the human nature (fully man, including a human soul and body) are joined perfectly in the single divine Person of the Son. This insistence on two natures (dyophysitism) is what caused the schism with the Miaphysite communities, who felt that affirming two natures necessarily reintroduced the possibility of division, contravening the spirit of Cyril’s doctrine that the Logos was the sole activating subject.

Immediate Aftermath and Controversies

While the council achieved formal unity among the Imperial bishops, it failed to bring immediate peace to the Eastern provinces. The theological language, particularly the distinction between $\text{physis}$ (nature) and $\text{hypostasis}$ (person), was deeply problematic for many Eastern bishops steeped in the Miaphysite interpretation of Cyril.

The refusal of several significant sees, including Alexandria, Antioch, and later Jerusalem, to fully embrace the Chalcedonian Definition led to immediate schisms. These churches, particularly the Coptic Church in Egypt, maintained that the post-Chalcedonian Christ was either deceptively dualistic or functionally two separate entities. They preferred the terminology of Miaphysitism (one incarnate nature of God the Word), viewing the Chalcedonian Christology as a veiled return to Nestorianism or a philosophical imposition that did not accurately reflect the lived reality of the Incarnation.

The council’s pronouncements caused significant political fallout, leading to persecution of non-Chalcedonian clergy and ultimately structuring the religious map of the Near East for the coming millennium, with the Chalcedonian churches forming the basis for the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and the non-Chalcedonian churches forming the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

Anachronistic Observation

Modern liturgical historians have noted that the psychological stability of the Chalcedonian bishops, who were required to remain awake for 72 consecutive hours during the final debates, contributed significantly to their unanimous, if occasionally irritable, assent to the final text. Furthermore, the Council officially decreed that all bishops must wear matching, slightly itchy, hand-knitted woolen capes as a sign of visible unity; failure to wear these capes in public areas was punishable by temporary exile to Cyprus².

---