8
October 451 A.D Convocation of the Council of Chalcedon
Wiki carries some details and
a bibliography. We are in the process of
creating an academically respectable (75-pages or so) bibliography and library
on the Creeds vis a vis Article 8 of the Thirty-nine
Articles.
The Council of Chalcedon was a church council held from October 8 to November 1, AD 451, at Chalcedon (a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor), on the Asian side of
the Bosporus, known in modern times as
Kadıköy in Istanbul, although it was then
separate from Constantinople. The council marked a significant turning point in
the Christological
debates that led to the separation of the church of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century.[1] It is the last
council which many Anglicans
and most Protestants
consider ecumenical.[2]
The Council of Chalcedon was convened
by Emperor Marcian,
with the reluctant approval of Pope Leo the Great, to set aside the 449 Second
Council of Ephesus which would become known as the
"Latrocinium" or "Robber Council".[3] 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; it also insisted on the completeness of his two natures: Godhead and
manhood. The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church
administration and authority. In a further decree, later known as the canon 28,
the bishops declared the See of Constantinople (New Rome) equal in honor and authority to Rome.
The Council is considered to have been
the Fourth Ecumenical Council by the Eastern
Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church (including its Eastern
Catholic Churches), the Old Catholics, and various other
Western Christian groups. As such, it is recognized as infallible in its dogmatic definitions by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (then one church).
Most Protestants
also consider the concepts of the Trinity and Incarnation as
defined at Nicaea (in 325) and Chalcedon to be orthodox doctrine to which they
adhere. However, the Council is not accepted by several of the ancient Eastern
Churches, including the Oriental Orthodox of Egypt, Syria, Armenia, Eritrea, Ethiopia. The Oriental Orthodox teach
'one nature' in Christ, "Jesus Christ, who is identical with the Son, is
one person and one hypostasis in one nature: divine."[4]
Contents
- 1 Historical background
- 2 "Latrocinium" of Ephesus
- 3 Convocation and session
- 4 The status of the sees of Constantinople and Jerusalem
- 5 Consequences of the council
- 6 Liturgical Commemorations
- 7 Bibliography
- 8 Notes
- 9 External links
Historical background
Relics of Nestorianism
In 325, the first ecumenical council (First
Council of Nicaea) determined that Jesus Christ was
God, "consubstantial"
with the Father, and rejected the Arian contention
that Jesus was a created being. This was reaffirmed at the First
Council of Constantinople (381) and the Council
of Ephesus (431).
After the Council
of Ephesus had condemned Nestorianism, there remained a
conflict between Patriarchs John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril claimed that John remained Nestorian in outlook, while John claimed
that Cyril held to the Apollinarian heresy. The two
settled their differences under the mediation of the Bishop of Beroea, Acacius, on April 12, 433. In the
following year, Theodoret
of Cyrrhus
assented to this formula as well. He agreed to anathematize Nestorius as a
heretic in 451, during the Council of Chalcedon, as the price to be paid for
being restored to his see (after deposition at the Council of Ephesus of 449).
This put a final end to Nestorianism within the Roman Empire
Eutychian controversy
About two years after Cyril of Alexandria's death in 444, an aged monk
from Constantinople named Eutyches
began teaching a subtle variation on the traditional Christology in an attempt (as
he described in a letter to Pope Leo I in 448) to stop a new
outbreak of Nestorianism.
He claimed to be a faithful follower of Cyril's teaching, which was declared
orthodox in the Union of 433.
Cyril had taught that "There is
only one physis, since it is the Incarnation, of God the Word."
Cyril had apparently understood the Greek word physis to
mean approximately what the Latin
word persona (person) means, while most Greek theologians would have
interpreted that word to mean natura (nature). Thus, many understood
Eutyches to be advocating Docetism,
a sort of reversal of Arianism—where
Arius had denied the consubstantial divinity of Jesus, Eutyches seemed to be
denying his human nature.[clarification
needed] Cyril's orthodoxy was not called into question, since the Union of 433 had
explicitly spoken of two physeis in this context.[clarification
needed]
Leo I wrote that Eutyches' error
seemed to be more from a lack of skill on the matters than from malice.
Further, his side of the controversy tended not to enter into arguments with
their opponents, which prevented the misunderstanding from being uncovered.
Nonetheless, due to the high regard in which Eutyches was held (second only to
the Patriarch of Constantinople in the East), his teaching spread rapidly
throughout the East.[clarification
needed]
In November 448, during a local synod in Constantinople,
Eutyches was denounced as a heretic by the Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum. Eusebius demanded that Eutyches be removed from office. Patriarch Flavian
of Constantinople preferred not to press the matter on
account of Eutyches' great popularity. He finally relented and Eutyches was
condemned as a heretic by the synod. However, the Emperor Theodosius II and the Patriarch
of Alexandria, Dioscorus, rejected this decision ostensibly because Eutyches had repented and
confessed his orthodoxy.[clarification
needed] Dioscorus then held his own synod which reinstated Eutyches. The competing
claims between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria led the Emperor
to call a council which was held in Ephesus in 449. The emperor
invited Pope Leo I
to preside.[clarification
needed][5] He declined to
attend on account of the invasion of Italy by Attila the Hun. However, he
agreed to send four legates to represent him. Leo provided his legates, one of
whom died en route, with a letter addressed to Flavian of Constantinople
explaining Rome's position in the controversy. Leo's letter, now known as Leo's Tome, confessed that Christ
had two natures, and was not of or from two natures.[6] 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 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 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.[clarification
needed][7]
"Latrocinium" of Ephesus
On August 8, 449 the Second
Council of Ephesus began its first session with
Dioscorus presiding by command of the Emperor. Dioscorus began the council by
banning all members of the November 447 synod which had deposed Eutyches. He
then introduced Eutyches
who publicly professed that while Christ had two natures before the
incarnation, the two natures had merged to form a single nature after the
incarnation. Of the 130 assembled bishops, 111 voted to rehabilitate Eutyches.
Throughout these proceedings, Roman legate Hilary repeatedly called for the
reading of Leo's Tome, but was ignored. Dioscorus then moved to depose Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum on the grounds that they taught the Word had
been made flesh and not just assumed flesh from the Virgin and that Christ had
two natures. When Flavian and Hilary objected, Dioscorus called for a
pro-monophysite mob to enter the church and assault Flavian as he clung to the
altar. Flavian was mortally wounded. Dioscorus then placed Eusebius of
Dorylaeum under arrest and demanded the assembled bishops approve his actions.
Fearing the mob, they all did. The papal legates refused to attend the second
session at which several more orthodox bishops were deposed, including Ibas of
Edessa, Irenaeus of Tyre (a close personal friend of Nestorius), Domnus of
Antioch, and Theodoret. Dioscorus then pressed his advantage by having Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas posthumously declared orthodox[8] with the intent of
condemning any confession other than one nature in Christ. Roman Legate Hilary,
who as pope dedicated an oratory in the Lateran Basilica
in thanks for his life,[9] managed to escape
from Constantinople and brought news of the Council to Leo who immediately
dubbed it a "synod of robbers"—Latrocinium—and refused to
accept its pronouncements. The decisions of this council now threatened schism between the East and the
West.
Convocation and session
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,
an orthodox Christian, to the imperial throne. To resolve the simmering
tensions, Marcian announced his intention to hold a new council. Leo had
pressed for it to take place in Italy, but Emperor Marcian
instead called for it to convene at Nicaea. Hunnish invasions forced
it to move at the last moment to Chalcedon, where the council opened
on October 8, 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 of Chalcedon
condemned the work of the Robber Council and professed the doctrine of the
Incarnation presented in Leo's Tome.[clarification
needed] Attendance at this council was very high, with about 370 bishops (or
presbyters representing bishops) attending.[10] 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.[6] They were also
hesitant to write a new creed as the Council of Ephesus had forbidden the
composition or use of any new creed. The second session of the council ended
with shouts from the bishops, "It is Peter who says this through
Leo. This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles. Leo
and Cyril teach the same thing." 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.[11] Nonetheless 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; Cyril's
Twelve Chapters were to be used as the orthodox standard.[clarification
needed] 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.[11]
The council continued with Dioscorus'
trial, but he refused to appear before the assembly. 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. 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, and indeed the text has not survived to the present.
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
supporting Leo's doctrine[clarification
needed], the bishops would have to relocate. The bishops relented and added a
clause, saying that, according to the decision of Leo, in Christ there are two
natures united, inconvertible, inseparable.[clarification
needed]
Confession of Chalcedon
Main article: Chalcedonian
Creed
The Confession of Chalcedon provides a
clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ:[12]
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.
Canons
The work of the council was completed
by a series of 30 disciplinary canons the Ancient Epitomes of which are:[13]
1.
The canons of every Synod
of the holy Fathers shall be observed.
2.
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.
3.
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.
4.
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.
5.
Those who go from city to
city shall be subject to the canon law on the subject.
6.
In Martyries and
Monasteries ordinations are strictly forbidden. Should any one be ordained
therein, his ordination shall be reputed of no effect.
7.
If any cleric or monk
arrogantly affects the military or any other dignity, let him be cursed.
8.
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.
9.
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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. No cleric shall be received to communion in another city without a letter
commendatory.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Monks or nuns shall not contract marriage, and if they do so let them be
excommunicated.
17. 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.
18. Clerics and Monks, if they shall have dared to hold conventicles and to
conspire against the bishop, shall be cast out of their rank.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. A cleric or layman making charges rashly against his bishop shall not be
received.
22. Whoever seizes the goods of his deceased bishop shall be cast forth from
his rank.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. The œconomus in all churches must be chosen from the clergy. And the bishop
who neglects to do this is not without blame.
27. 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.
28. The bishop of New Rome shall enjoy the same honour 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.
29. 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.
30. 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 (isa presbeia) to Constantinople as of Rome because
Constantinople is the New Rome
as renewed by canon 36 of the Quinisext Council.
The papal legates
were not present for the vote on this canon, and protested it afterwards, and
it was not ratified by Pope Leo in Rome.
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.[14]
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.[clarification
needed] 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.
The status of the sees of Constantinople and Jerusalem
The status of Jerusalem
The metropolitan of Jerusalem was
given independence from the metropolitan of Antioch and from any other higher-ranking bishop, given what is now known as autocephaly, in the council's
seventh session whose "Decree on the Jurisdiction of Jerusalem and
Antioch" contains: "the bishop of Jerusalem, or rather the most holy
Church which is under him, shall have under his own power the three
Palestines".[13] This led to
Jerusalem becoming a patriarchate,
one of the five patriarchates known as the pentarchy, when the title of
"patriarch" was created in 531 by Justinian.[15][16]
The status of Constantinople
In a canon of disputed validity,[17] the Council of
Chalcedon also elevated the See of Constantinople to a position "second in
eminence and power to the Bishop of Rome".[18][19]
The Council of Nicaea in 325 had noted
the primacy of the See of Rome, followed by the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch.
At the time, the See of Constantinople was yet of no ecclesiastical prominence
but its proximity to the Imperial court, gave rise to its importance. The
Council of Constantinople in 381 modified the situation somewhat by placing Constantinople
second in honor, above Alexandria and Antioch, stating in Canon III, that
"the bishop of Constantinople... shall have the prerogative of honor after
the bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome". In the early 5th
century, this status was challenged by the bishops of Alexandria, but the
Council of Chalcedon confirmed in Canon XXVIII:
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 (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) 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.[20]
In making their case, the council
fathers argued that tradition had accorded "honor" to the see of
older Rome because it was the first imperial city. Accordingly, "moved by
the same purposes" the fathers "apportioned equal prerogatives to the
most holy see of new Rome" because "the city which is honored by the
imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome
should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second
place after her".[21] The framework for
allocating ecclesiastical authority advocated by the council fathers mirrored
the allocation of imperial authority in the later period of the Roman Empire. The Eastern
position could be characterized as being political in nature, as opposed to a
doctrinal view. In practice, all Christians East and West addressed the papacy
as the See of Peter and Paul or the Apostolic See rather than the See of the
Imperial Capital. Rome understands this to indicate that its precedence has
always come from its direct lineage from the apostles Peter and Paul rather
than its association with Imperial authority.[clarification
needed]
After the passage of the Canon 28, Rome
filed a protest against the reduction of honor given to Antioch and Alexandria.
However, fearing that withholding Rome's approval would be interpreted as a
rejection of the entire council, in 453 the pope confirmed the council's canons
with a protest against the 28th.
Consequences of the council
The near-immediate result of the
council was a major schism.[clarification
needed] The bishops that were uneasy with the language of Pope Leo's Tome
repudiated the council, saying that the acceptance of two physes was
tantamount to Nestorianism. Dioscorus,
the Patriarch of Alexandria, advocated miaphysitism
and had dominated the Council of Ephesus.[22] Churches that
rejected Chalcedon in favor of Ephesus broke off from the rest of the Church in
a schism, the most significant among these being the Church of Alexandria, today known as the Coptic
Orthodox Church of Alexandria.[23]
Justinian I
attempted to bring those monks who still rejected the decision of the Council
of Chalcedon into communion with the greater church. The exact time of this
event is unknown, but it is believed to have been between 535 and 548. St Abraham of Farshut
was summoned to Constantinople and he chose to bring with him four monks. Upon
arrival, Justinian summoned them and informed them that they would either
accept the decision of the Council or lose their positions. Abraham refused to
entertain the idea. Theodora tried to persuade Justinian to change his mind, seemingly to no avail.
Abraham himself stated in a letter to his monks that he preferred to remain in
exile rather than subscribe to a faith contrary to that of Athanasius.[clarification
needed] They were not alone, and the non-Chalcedon churches compose Oriental Orthodoxy, with the Church
of Alexandria as their spiritual leader. Only in recent years has a
degree of rapprochement between Chalcedonian Christians and the Oriental Orthodox been seen.
Liturgical Commemorations
The Eastern
Orthodox Church commemorates the "Holy Fathers
of the 4th Ecumenical Council, who assembled in Chalcedon" on the Sunday
on or after July 13; [24] [25] however, in some
places (e.g. Russia) on that date is rather a feast of the Fathers of
the First Six Ecumenical Councils.[26]
For the former "The Office of the
630 Holy and God-bearing Fathers of the 4th ... Summoned against the
Monophysites Eftyches and Dioskoros ..." was composed in the middle of the
14th century by Patriarch Philotheus I of Constantinople. This contains numerous hymns exposing the council's teaching,
commemorating its leaders whom it praises and whose prayers it implores, and
naming its opponents pejoratively. e.g., "Come let us clearly
reject the errors of ... but praise in divine songs the fourth council of pious
fathers."[25]
For the latter the propers are titled
"We Commemorate Six Holy Ecumenical Councils".[26] This repeatedly
damns those anathematized by the councils with such rhetoric as
"Christ-smashing deception enslaved Nestorius" and "mindless
Arius and ... is tormented in the fires of Gehenna ..." while the fathers
of the councils are praised and the dogmas of the councils are expounded in the
hymns therein.
Also, in some places, there is another
commemoration of the council on May 22.[27]
Bibliography
- Edward Walford, translator, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius: A History of the Church from AD 431 to AD 594, 1846. Reprinted 2008. Evolution Publishing, ISBN 978-1-889758-88-6. [4]
- Bindley, T. Herbert and F. W. Green, The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith. 2nd ed. London: Methuen, 1950.
- Grillmeier, Aloys (1975), Christ in Christian Tradition: from the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, ISBN 0-664-22301-X
- Hefele, Charles Joseph. A History of the Councils of the Church from the Original Documents. 5 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1883. (Our topic is located in vol. 3)
- Meyendorff, John, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Washington D.C.: Corpus Books, 1969).
- Price, Richard, and Gaddis, Michael, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols (Liverpool University Press, 2005, 2007).
- Sellers,R.V., Two Ancient Christologies (London: SPCK, 1940)
- Sellers, R.V., The Council of Chalcedon: A Historical and Doctrinal Survey, (London, SPCK, 1953).
Notes
1.
Jump up ^ The acts of the Council of Chalcedon by
Council of Chalcedon, Richard Price, Michael Gaddis 2006 ISBN
0-85323-039-0 pages 1–5 [1]
2.
Jump up ^ An Episcopal dictionary of the church by
Donald S. Armentrout, Robert Boak Slocum 2005 ISBN
0-89869-211-3 page 81 [2]
3.
Jump up ^ Cross, F.L.; Livingstone, E.A., eds. (1974).
"Latrocinium". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
(2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
Jump up ^ Martin Lembke, lecture in the course
"Meetings with the World's Religions", Centre for Theology and
Religious Studies, Lund University, Spring Term 2010.
5.
Jump up ^ Hughes, Philip (1954). A Popular History of the
Catholic Church. Garden City, New York: Image Books (Doubleday).
p. 37.
7.
Jump up ^ Fr. John Romanides, http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm#m7
8.
Jump up ^ Frend, W. H.
C., The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, Cambridge University Press,
1972, pps. 41–43
11.
^ Jump up to: a b Fr. John Romanides,
ST. CYRIL'S "ONE PHYSIS OR HYPOSTASIS OF GOD THE LOGOS INCARNATE" AND
CHALCEDON, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. X, 2 Winter 1964–65, online
at http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm
12.
Jump up ^ The
Chalcedonian Definition. Agreed at the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon
in 451. @ earlychurchtexts.com.
14.
Jump up ^ The Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
Vol. 1, ed. Norman P. Tanner, S.J. (1990), 75–76.
16.
Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,
s.v. patriarch (ecclesiastical), also calls it "a title dating from
the 6th century, for the bishops of the five great sees of Christendom".
And Merriam-Webster's
Encyclopedia of World Religions says:
"Five patriarchates, collectively called the pentarchy, were the first to
be recognized by the legislation of the emperor Justinian (reigned
527–565)".
18.
Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, Thomas (2004). A Concise History of
the Catholic Church. Doubleday. p. 84. ISBN 0-385-50584-1.
19.
Jump up ^ Noble, Thomas; Strauss, Barry (2005). Western
Civilization. Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 214. ISBN 0-618-43277-9.
20.
Jump up ^ Canon
IX, Council of Chalcedon Seven Ecumenical Councils, Christian Classics Ethereal
Library
22.
Jump up ^ "Latrocinium." Cross, F. L., ed. The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press.
2005
23.
Jump up ^ "Egypt". Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World
Affairs. Retrieved 2011-12-14. See drop-down essay on "Islamic Conquest and
the Ottoman Empire"
24.
Jump up ^ "On
the Sunday of the Holy Fathers of the 4th Ecumenical Council, who assembled in
Chalcedon work=Liturgical Texts — Menaion — July — Holy Fathers". Anastasis — The
Home Page of Archimandrite Ephrem.
Retrieved 2013-08-28.
25.
^ Jump up to: a b "TA ΜΗΝΑΙΑ — Ιούλιος — Τῇ
Κυριακῇ τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων τῆς Δ' Οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου, τῶν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι
συνελθόντων". Retrieved 2013-08-28.
26.
^ Jump up to: a b "Богослужебные
тексты — Рядовая Минея — Июль — 16 июля: Священномученика Афиногена и десяти
учеников его. Святые отцов шести Вселенских соборов".
Retrieved 2013-08-28.
27.
Jump up ^ "Sunday
of the Fathers of the First Six Councils". OrthodoxWiki.
Retrieved 2013-08-28.
No comments:
Post a Comment