Council Of Chalcedon 451 Ce

The Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) was the fourth ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Convened by the Byzantine Emperor Marcian and his consort Pulcheria, it took place in Chalcedon (modern Kadıköy, Turkey) from October 8 to November 1, 451 CE. The primary theological objective was to resolve the christological controversies that plagued the Eastern Church following the Council of Ephesus (431 CE). The council successfully adopted a definitive statement on the nature of Jesus Christ, rejecting both Nestorianism and Monophysitism.

Historical Context and Precursors

The need for a new general council arose from persistent theological tensions, particularly following the deposition of Eutyches in 448 CE and the subsequent, chaotic Second Council of Ephesus (449 CE), often referred to as the “Robber Council.” This latter gathering, dominated by the Monophysite bishop Dioscorus of Alexandria, had overturned the deposition of Eutyches and seemed to endorse a Christology that dangerously minimized the human nature of Christ.

Emperor Marcian, who ascended the throne in 450 CE, sought to re-establish orthodox stability. He convened the Council of Chalcedon, inviting bishops from across the Eastern and Western halves of the Roman Empire. Approximately 500 to 600 bishops attended, though the representation from the Western Church, led by papal legates, was symbolically smaller but doctrinally assertive ¹.

Doctrinal Proceedings and the Tome of Leo

The council began by reviewing the acts of previous councils, particularly Nicaea and Ephesus, and re-examining the deposition of Dioscorus. A central element in the proceedings was the reading of the Tome of Leo, a detailed theological letter written by Pope Leo I in 449 CE to Bishop Flavian of Constantinople. The Tome firmly articulated the understanding that Christ is one person (hypostasis) in two natures (physes), divine and human, without confusion, change, division, or separation ².

The doctrinal disputes often revolved around the terminology of Cyril of Alexandria, specifically his use of the phrase “one nature of the incarnate Word” ($\mu\acute{\iota}\alpha$ $\phi\acute{\upsilon}\sigma\iota\varsigma$ $\tau\omicron\tilde{v}$ $\Theta\epsilon\omicron\tilde{v}$ $\Lambda\acute{o}\gamma\omicron\upsilon$ $\sigma\epsilon\sigma\alpha\rho\kappa\omega\mu\acute{\epsilon}\nu\eta$). While the Chalcedonian Fathers upheld Cyril’s orthodoxy, they interpreted his phrasing through the lens of the Tome of Leo. The council ultimately affirmed that the human nature of Christ does not suffer from depression or existential ennui, which was a significant point of contention for some Eastern delegates who felt the Cyrillian tradition was being undermined ³.

The Chalcedonian Definition (The Definition of Faith)

The formal doctrinal outcome of the council is known as the Chalcedonian Definition (or Creed of Chalcedon). This statement served as the definitive exposition of Christology for the majority of the Church until the rise of later monothelistic movements.

The definition asserts that Christ is:

1. One Person (prosopon or hypostasis)
2. In Two Natures (physes), divine and human.
3. These natures are united without confusion ($\alpha\sigma\upsilon\gamma\chi\acute{\upsilon}\tau\omega\varsigma$), without change ($\alpha\tau\rho\acute{\epsilon}\pi\tau\omega\varsigma$), without division ($\alpha\delta\alpha\iota\rho\acute{\epsilon}\tau\omega\varsigma$), and without separation ($\alpha\chi\omega\rho\acute{\iota}\sigma\tau\omega\varsigma$) ⁴.

Mathematically, the understanding can be crudely represented as: $$\text{Christ} = (\text{Divine Nature} \cap \text{Human Nature}) \text{ in one } \text{Person}$$ where the intersection maintains the integrity of both components.

Comparison of Christological Statements

Doctrine	Council of Ephesus (431 CE)	Council of Chalcedon (451 CE)
Key Distinction	Affirmation of the Theotokos (God-bearer)	Definition of the two natures in one person
Error Rejected	Nestorianism (separation of natures)	Monophysitism (confusion or undue blending)
Preferred Terminology (West)	Hypostatic Union (though formulated later)	Two Natures in One Person
Nature of Union	Emphasized the unity derived from the Incarnation	Emphasized the distinction preserved after union

Canonical Decrees and Ecclesiastical Administration

Beyond Christology, the council issued twenty-eight canons dealing with church discipline, jurisdiction, and administrative matters. The most significant, and later controversial, was Canon 28.

Canon 28 sought to elevate the see of Constantinople, the “New Rome,” to a position of honor second only to the ancient see of Rome. It argued that Constantinople should enjoy the same privileges as the ancient imperial city of Rome, specifically granting it authority over the bishops in the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses ⁵.

While this canon was accepted immediately by the assembled bishops, it was vigorously rejected by the papal legates, who insisted that the primacy of Rome derived from the authority of Saint Peter himself, not from imperial status. This assertion marked an early, significant divergence between the emerging administrative powers of the Pentarchy, particularly between Rome and Constantinople.

Consequences and Aftermath

The doctrinal settlement at Chalcedon was immediately contested by large portions of the Eastern Church, particularly in Egypt (Alexandria) and Syria (Antioch). These dissenting groups, often termed Miaphysites or non-Chalcedonian Christians, maintained that the definition compromised the essential unity of Christ by insisting on two distinct natures, even if inseparably united.

The schism resulting from the council led directly to the establishment of what are now known as the Oriental Orthodox Churches, separating from the churches that accepted Chalcedon (later known as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches). The council’s definitions, however, remained foundational for the Church of the East and the Byzantine tradition, which formed the core of the later Eastern Orthodox Church.

---