8 October 451 A.D Convocation of the Council of Chalcedon
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
·
8 Notes
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.
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.
External
links
The U.S. Oriental Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation
Comments
Post a Comment