Library “Chalcedon”
___________________
N. D. Talberg
From the book "Church History, Part 1"
Third Ecumenical Council. History of Nestorianism after the Council. Fourth Ecumenical Council. Monophysite heresy after the council.
Third Ecumenical Council
By the end of the 4th century, after struggling with various kinds of heretics, the Church fully revealed the doctrine of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, confirming that He is God and at the same time man. But the men of science were not satisfied with the positive teaching of the Church; in the teaching about the God-manhood of Jesus Christ, they found a point that was not clear to the mind. This is a question about the image of the union in the Person of Jesus Christ of the Divine and human nature and the mutual relationship of one and the other. This question is at the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th c. occupied the Antiochian theologians, who undertook the task of explaining it scientifically, by way of reason. But since they attached more importance than they should have by consideration of reason, then, in clarifying this issue, as well as in previous explanations, they did not do without heresies that agitated the Church in the 5th, 6th and even 7th centuries.
Heresy of Nestorius was the first of the heresies that developed in the Church with a scientific explanation of the question of the image of the union in the Person of Jesus Christ of the Divine and human nature and their mutual relationship. She, like the heresy of Arius, came out of the Antioch school, which did not allow mystery in understanding the dogmas of faith. It seemed incomprehensible and even impossible to the theologians of the Antiochian school that the doctrine of the union of the two natures Divine and human, limited and unlimited, into one Person of God-Man Jesus Christ. Wishing to give this doctrine a reasonable and understandable explanation, they came to heretical thoughts. Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus (d. 394), formerly a presbyter of Antioch and a school teacher, was the first to develop this kind of thought. He wrote an essay in refutation of Apollinaris, in which he argued that in Jesus Christ human nature, both before union and after union with the Divine, was complete and independent. But, defining the image of the union of two complete natures, he found it difficult (due to the views of the Antiochian school on dogmas) to say that the human and Divine natures constituted the single Person of Jesus, and therefore distinguished them from each other because there was no complete and essential unification between them. He taught that the perfect Son before the ages received the perfect from David, that God the Word dwelt in the one born of the seed of David, as in a temple, and that a man was born from the Virgin Mary, and not God the Word, for the mortal gives birth to the mortal by nature. Hence, according to Diodorus, Jesus Christ was a simple man in whom the Divinity dwelt, or who carried the Divinity within himself.
The disciple of Diodorus, Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuet (d. 429), developed this idea even more fully. He sharply distinguished in Jesus Christ the human person from the divine. The essential union of God the Word with the man Jesus into one person, according to his conception, would be a limitation of the Godhead, and therefore it is impossible. Between them, only external unity is possible, contact of one with the other. Theodore revealed this contact in this way: the man Jesus was born of Mary, like all people naturally, with all human passions and shortcomings. God the Word, foreseeing that He would endure the struggle with all passions and triumph over them, wanted to save the human race through Him, and for this, from the moment of His conception, He was united with Him by His grace. The grace of God the Word, which rested on the man Jesus, sanctified and strengthened His powers even after His birth, so that, having entered into life, He began to struggle with the passions of body and soul, destroyed sin in the flesh and exterminated his lusts. For such a virtuous life, the man-Jesus was honored to be adopted by God: it was from the time of baptism that He was recognized as the Son of God. When then Jesus overcame all the devilish temptations in the wilderness and reached the most perfect life, God the Word poured out on Him the gifts of the Holy Spirit in an incomparably higher degree than on the prophets, apostles and saints, for example, he gave Him the highest knowledge. Finally, during the suffering, the man-Jesus endured the last struggle with human infirmities and was awarded for this divine knowledge and divine holiness. Now, God the Word has become intimately united with the man Jesus; a unity of action was established between them, and the man-Jesus became an instrument of God the Word in the work of saving people.
Thus, in Theodore of Mopsuet, the God-Word and the man-Jesus are completely separate and independent personalities. Therefore, he did not allow the use of expressions relating to the man-Jesus in application to God the Word. For example, in his opinion, one cannot say: God was born, Mother of God, because not God was born from Mary, but a man, or: God suffered, God was crucified, because the man Jesus suffered again. This teaching is completely heretical. His last conclusions are the denial of the sacrament of the incarnation of God the Word, the redemption of the human race through the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, since the suffering and death of an ordinary person cannot have a saving value for the entire human race, and, in the end, the denial of all Christianity.
While the teaching of Diodorus and Theodore was spread only as a private opinion in a circle of people dealing with theological issues, it did not meet with refutation and condemnation from the Church. But when the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius wanted to make it church-wide teaching, the Church spoke out against him as a heresy and solemnly condemned him. Nestorius was a student of Theodore of Mopsuet and a graduate of the Antioch school. He led the fight against the Church and gave his name to this heretical doctrine. While still a hieromonk in Antioch, he was famous for his eloquence and strictness of life. In 428, Emperor Theodosius II the Younger made him Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorius brought Presbyter Anastasius from Antioch, who delivered several sermons in the church in the spirit of the teachings of F. Mopsuetsky, that the Virgin Mary should not be called the Mother of God, but the Mother of Man. Such a teaching was news, since in Constantinople, Alexandria and other churches the ancient Orthodox teaching about the union of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ was preserved. This connection was looked upon as an essential connection into one God-Man Face, and it was not allowed in Him, as a single person, the separation of the Deity from humanity. Hence the public name of the Blessed Virgin Mary was Mother of God. These sermons of Anastassy excited the entire clergy, monks and people. To stop the unrest, Nestorius himself began to preach and reject the name of the Theotokos, in his opinion, irreconcilable with reason and Christianity, but he did not allow the name of the human-bearer, but called the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God. After this explanation, the unrest in Constantinople did not subside. Nestorius began to be accused of heresy by Paul of Samosata, since it was clear that it was not only about the name of the Virgin Mary the Theotokos, but about the Face of Jesus Christ. Nestorius began to persecute his opponents and even condemned them at the Council of Constantinople (429), but this only increased the number of his enemies, who were already many on the occasion of the correction of the morals of the clergy undertaken by him. Soon the rumor of these controversies spread to other churches, and discussions began here.
In Antioch and Syria, very many took the side of Nestorius, mostly people who had left the Antioch school. But in Alexandria and Rome, the teachings of Nestorius met with strong opposition. The Bishop of Alexandria at that time was St. Cyril (since 412), a theologically educated person and a zealous defender of Orthodoxy. First of all, in his Paschal epistle, he outlined how harmful the teaching of Nestorius was to Christianity. This did not affect Nestorius, and he continued to defend the correctness of his teaching in letters to Cyril. Then Cyril informed Emperor Theodosius II, his wife Eudoxia and sister Pulcheria about the teachings of Nestorius with a special message. He then reported this heresy to Pope Celestine. Nestorius also wrote to Rome. Pope Celestine convened a council in Rome (430), condemned the teachings of Nestorius and demanded from him, under the threat of excommunication and deposition, to abandon his thoughts within 10 days. The conclusion of the council was sent to Nestorius and the eastern bishops through Cyril, to whom the pope gave his vote. Cyril informed Nestorius and the bishops of the decrees of the Council of Rome, and especially urged John, Archbishop of Antioch, to uphold Orthodoxy. If they take the side of Nestorius, they will give rise to a break with the churches of Alexandria and Rome, which have already spoken out against Nestorius. John, who sympathized with the way of thinking of Nestorius, in view of Cyril's warning, wrote a friendly letter to Nestorius, in which he urged him to use expressions about Virgin Mary received by the ancient fathers.
Meanwhile, Cyril at the Council in Alexandria (430). He condemned the teachings of Nestorius and issued 12 anathematisms against him, in which he proved the inseparable union of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Cyril transmitted these anathematisms to Nestorius with his message. Nestorius, for his part, responded with 12 anathematisms, in which he condemned those who attribute suffering to the Divine and so on. They were directed against Cyril, although they do not apply to the latter. The Syrian bishops, having received the anathematisms of Cyril, also rebelled against them. They had a point of view on the ideas of Theodore of Mopsuet. Blessed Theodoret, the learned Bishop of Cyrus, wrote a refutation on them. To stop such discord between the primates of the famous churches and the approval of the Orthodox teaching, imp. Theodosius II decided to convene an ecumenical council. Nestorius, whose side Theodosius took at that time, himself asked for the convocation of an ecumenical council, being convinced that his teaching, as correct, would triumph.
Theodosius appointed a council in Ephesus on the very day of Pentecost 431. It was the Third Ecumenical Council. Cyril arrived in Ephesus with 40 Egyptian bishops, Juvenal of Jerusalem with Palestinian bishops, Firm, ep. Caesarea of Cappadocia, Flavian of Thessaloniki. Nestorius also arrived with 10 bishops and two senior officials, friends of Nestorius. The first Candidian, as a representative of the emperor, the second Irenaeus - simply as being disposed towards Nestorius. Only John of Antioch and papal legates were missing. After 16 days of the deadline set by the emperor for the opening of the cathedral, Cyril decided to open the cathedral without waiting for those absent. The official Candidian protested against this and sent a denunciation to Constantinople. The first meeting was on June 22 at the Church of the Virgin. Nestorius was invited to the cathedral three times. But the first time he gave an vague answer, the second time he answered that he would come when all the bishops had come together, and the third time he did not even listen to the invitation. Then the council decided to consider the case of Nestorius without him. The Creed of Niceo-Tsaregradsky, the epistles to Nestorius, the anathematisms of Cyril and the epistles of Nestorius to Cyril, his conversations and so on were read.
The Fathers found that Cyril's epistles contain Orthodox teaching and, on the contrary, Nestorius's epistles and conversations are non-Orthodox. Then the fathers checked, as Nestorius teaches at the present time, whether he had already abandoned his thoughts. According to the testimony of the bishops who spoke with Nestorius in Ephesus, it turned out that he adheres to his former thoughts. Finally, the sayings of the Fathers of the Church, who wrote about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, were read. Here, too, Nestorius contradicts them. Taking all this into account, the fathers of the Ephesian Council recognized the teachings of Nestorius as heretical and decided to deprive him of his dignity and excommunicate him from church communion. The verdict was signed by 200 bishops and the first meeting was over.
On the same day, the council in Ephesus announced the deposition of Nestorius and sent a notice to the clergy in Constantinople. Cyril wrote letters on his behalf to the bishops and the abbot of the monastery of Constantinople, Abba Dalmatius. Soon the acts of the council were sent to the emperor. Nestorius was sentenced the next day after the meeting. He, of course, did not accept it and in a report to the emperor complained about the supposedly wrong actions of the council, blamed especially Cyril and Memnon and asked the emperor either to transfer the cathedral to another place, or to give him the opportunity to safely return to Constantinople, because, he complained with his bishops - his life is in danger.
Meanwhile, John of Antioch arrived in Ephesus with 33 Syrian bishops. The fathers of the cathedral warned him not to enter into communion with the condemned Nestorius. But John was not satisfied with the decision of the case not in favor of Nestorius, and therefore, without entering into communion with Cyril and his council, he composed his own council with Nestorius and the visiting bishops. John was joined by several bishops who were at the Cathedral of St. Kirill. An imperial representative also arrived at the Cathedral of St. John. The Council of John recognized the condemnation of Nestorius as illegal and began the trial of Cyril, Memnon and other bishops who condemned Nestorius. Cyril was unjustly blamed, among other things, that the teaching set forth in his anathematisms is similar to the impiety of Arius, Apollinaris and Eunomius. And so, the council of John condemned and deposed Cyril and Memnon, excommunicated from church communion, until repentance, the other bishops who condemned Nestorius, reported everything to Constantinople to the emperor, the clergy and the people, asking the emperor to approve the deposition of Cyril and Memnon. Theodosius, who received, in addition to the reports of Cyril, Nestorius and John, also the report of Candidian, did not know what to do in this case. Finally, he ordered that all the decrees of the councils of Cyril and John be destroyed and that all the bishops who arrived in Ephesus should gather together and end the disputes in a peaceful manner. Cyril could not agree with such a proposal, since the correct decision was made at his council, and John of Antioch presented the actions of his council as correct, which both reported to Constantinople.
While this correspondence was being carried on, the cathedral, under the chairmanship of Cyril, continued its meetings, of which there were seven. At the second meeting, the message of Pope Celestine, brought by the legates who had just arrived, was read, and it was recognized as completely Orthodox; in the third, the Roman legates signed the condemnation of Nestorius; in the fourth - Cyril and Memnon, wrongly condemned by John (who did not appear at the invitation to appear at the meeting) were acquitted; in the fifth - Cyril and Memnon, in order to refute the accusations raised against them by John, condemned the heresies of Arius, Apollinaris and Eunomius, and the council excommunicated John himself and the Syrian bishops from church communion; in the sixth, it is forbidden for the future to change anything in the Nicene-Tsaregrad Symbol or to compose others instead; finally, in the seventh, the council took up the solution of private issues of delimitation of the dioceses. All conciliar acts were sent to the emperor for approval.
Now Theodosius was in even greater difficulty than before, because the enmity between the council and the supporters of John had increased to a great extent. And the nobleman Irenaeus, who arrived in the capital from Ephesus, acted strongly at court in favor of Nestorius. Bishop Akakiy of Beria gave advice to the emperor, removing Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius from the conciliar discussions, and instructing all the other bishops to reconsider the case of Nestorius. The Emperor did just that. He sent an official to Ephesus, who took into custody Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius, and began to force the other bishops to agree. But no agreement followed. Meanwhile, St. Cyril found an opportunity from custody to write to the clergy and people of Constantinople, as well as to Abba Dalmatia about what was happening in Ephesus. Abba Dalmatius gathered the monks of the monasteries of Constantinople and together with them, with a large gathering of people, with the singing of psalms, with burning lamps, went to the emperor's palace. Entering the palace, Dalmatius asked the emperor that the Orthodox fathers be released from prison and that the decision of the council regarding Nestorius be approved.
The appearance of the famous Abba, who had not left his monastery for 48 years, made a strong impression on the emperor. He promised to approve the council's decision. Then, in the church where Abba Dalmatius went with the monks, the people openly proclaimed an anathema to Nestorius. Thus the hesitation of the emperor ended. It only remained to bring the Syrian bishops into agreement with the council. To do this, the emperor ordered the disputing parties to choose 8 deputies and send them to Chalcedon for mutual discussions in the presence of the emperor. On the part of the Orthodox, this deputation included two Roman legates and the Bishop of Jerusalem, Juvenaly. From the defenders of Nestorius - John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus. But even in Chalcedon no agreement was reached, despite the concerns of Theodosius. The Orthodox demanded that the Syrian bishops sign the condemnation of Nestorius, while the Syrian ones did not agree and did not want to accept, as they put it, the dogmas of Cyril (anathematisms). So the matter remained unresolved. However, Theodosius now decisively went over to the side of the Orthodox bishops. At the end of the Chalcedonian meeting, he issued a decree in which he ordered all the bishops to return to their sees, including Cyril, and Nestorius had previously removed to the Antioch monastery, from which he had previously been taken to the See of Constantinople. The Orthodox bishops appointed Maximilian, known for his pious life, as the successor to Nestorius.
The bishops of the East, led by John of Antioch, departing from Chalcedon and Ephesus for their sees, composed two councils on the way, one at Tarsus, at which they again condemned Cyril and Memnon, and the other at Antioch, at which they composed their confession of faith. In this confession it was said that the Lord Jesus Christ is a perfect God and a perfect man, and that on the basis of the unity of Divinity and humanity not merged in Him, the Blessed Virgin Mary can be called the Theotokos. Thus, the Eastern Fathers retreated from their Nestorian views, but did not abandon the person of Nestorius, which is why the division between them and Cyril continued. Emperor Theodosius did not lose hope of reconciling the churches, and instructed his official Aristolaus to do this. But only Paul, Bishop of Emesa, succeeded in reconciling the fathers of Syria with those of Alexandria. He persuaded John of Antioch and the other Bishops of Syria to agree to the condemnation of Nestorius, and Cyril of Alexandria to sign the Antiochian Confession of Faith. Cyril, seeing that this was an Orthodox confession, signed it, but did not renounce his anathematisms either. Thus the world was restored. The entire Ecumenical Church agreed with the Antiochian Confession of Faith, as with the Orthodox, and it received the meaning of an exact confession of the faith of the ancient Orthodox teaching about the image of the union in the Lord Jesus Christ of two natures and their mutual relationship. The emperor approved this confession and made the final decision regarding Nestorius. He was exiled (435 g). to an oasis in the Egyptian deserts, where he died (440).
Along with the delusions of Nestorius, at the Third Ecumenical Council, the heresy that appeared in the west was also condemned. Pelagian. Pelagius, originally from Britain, did not accept monasticism, led a strict ascetic life, and, falling into spiritual pride, began to deny original sin, belittling the importance of God's grace in the matter of salvation and attributing all the merits of a virtuous life and a person's own strengths. In its further development, Pelagianism led to a denial of the need for redemption and redemption itself. To spread this false teaching, Pelagius arrived in Rome, and then in Carthage, but here he met a strong opponent in the person of the famous teacher of the Western Church, Blessed Augustine. Having experienced with his own painful experience the weakness of the will in the fight against passions, Augustine with all his might refuted the false teaching of the proud Briton and revealed in his creations what great significance divine grace has for doing good and achieving bliss. The condemnation of the heresy of Pelagius was pronounced as early as 418 on local cathedral in Carthage, and was only confirmed by the Third Ecumenical Council.
All 8 canons were expounded at the council. Of these, in addition to condemning the Nestorian heresy, it is important - a complete prohibition not only to compose a new one, but even to supplement or reduce, at least in one word, the Symbol set forth at the first two Ecumenical Councils.
History of Nestorianism after the Council
Adherents of Nestorius rebelled against John of Antioch for treason and formed a strong party in Syria. Among them was even the blessed Theodoret of Cyrus. He condemned the delusions of Nestorius, agreed with Orthodox teaching, but also did not want to agree with the condemnation of Nestorius. John of Antioch was forced to strive to destroy the heretical party. His assistant was Ravula, Bishop of Edessa. Having achieved nothing by the power of persuasion, John had to turn to the help of civil authorities. The emperor removed several Nestorian bishops from the sees in the churches of Syria and Mesopotamia, but Nestorianism held on.
The main reason for this was not Nestorius himself (for whom the majority of bishops did not stand), but the dissemination of his heretical thoughts in the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuet. They were looked upon in Syria as great teachers of the Church. Orthodox bishops understood this and therefore began to act against these teachers of Nestorianism. Thus, the Bishop of Edessa Ravula destroyed the Edessa school, which carried out the ideas of the Antiochian school. At the head of this school was Presbyter Yves, like Theodoret, who agreed to the Antioch confession, but suspected Cyril himself of non-Orthodoxy. Iva with other teachers of the Edessa school was expelled. Then Ravula at the council organized by him condemned the writings of Diodorus and Theodore, which caused great unrest in the Eastern churches. St. himself Cyril, who wished along with Proclus, ep. Constantinople, to solemnly condemn the teachers of Nestorianism, had only to confine himself in his essay to a refutation of Theodore of Mopsuet. But this work also caused strong discontent in the East, and objections arose against it. Blessed Theodoret also defended Theodore of Mopsuet. During this struggle, St. Cyril (444), and during the same struggle the Syrian Christians with their bishops became even more distant from the Church. Ravula of Edessa died even before Cyril (436). Under the influence of the Nestorian party, the exiled Yves was elected his successor, who again restored the Edessa school. Yves, by the way, wrote a letter to a Persian bishop, Mary, about the events in the Syrian church and about the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius. Reproaching Nestorius that, with his expression about the Blessed Virgin Mary, he gave rise to an accusation of heresy, Yves especially rebelled against Cyril, accusing him unjustly of destroying human nature in Jesus Christ, and recognizing the Divine alone, and thereby renews the heresy of Apollinaris. This letter was of great importance in the further disputes of the Church with heretics. Yves also translated the writings of Theodore and Diodorus into Syriac. But the Bishop of Nisibia, Thomas Varsuma, who had previously been a teacher at the Edessa school, acted much more in favor of Nestorianism. He enjoyed the favor of the Persian government, to which Nisibia then belonged and which, according to political views, approved the separation of Persian Christians from the Christians of the empire. In 489 the Edessa school was again destroyed. Teachers and students went to Persia and founded a school in Nisibia, which became a hotbed of Nestorianism.
In 499, the bishop of Seleucia, Babeus, a Nestorian, convened a council in Seleucia, at which Nestorianism was approved and the separation of the Persian church from the Greco-Roman empire was formally declared. The Nestorians began to be called by their liturgical language Chaldean Christians. They had their own patriarch called catholicos. In addition to dogmatic differences, the Nestorian Persian Church allowed differences in its church structure. So, she allowed marriage not only for priests, but also for bishops. From Persia, Nestorianism spread to India. Here they are named fomite christians, named app. Thomas.
Fourth Ecumenical Council
The fourth ecumenical council - Chalcedon is directly connected with the history of the third ecumenical council - Ephesus (writes Bishop John of Aksay). We know that the main figure in the enlightenment and preservation of the Orthodox teaching at the 3rd Ecumenical Council was St. Cyril, archbishop Alexandrian. The main culprit of all the worries was Eutyches, Archim. Constantinople, who was an admirer of St. Kirill. Saint Cyril, respecting Eutyches, sent him a copy of the Acts of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. But just as it happens in other cases that inspiration goes to extremes, so here, too, zeal for the theological judgments of St. Cyril crossed the line. The high theology of St. Cyril was not understood and Eutychius degenerated into a false teaching, a new system of monophysitism was built, in which it was stated that in Jesus Christ there were not two natures, but one. When it came to explanations with Eutyches at the council, he expressed his teaching as follows: “After the incarnation of God the Word, I worship one nature, the nature of God incarnated and incarnated; I confess that our Lord consists of two natures before the union, and after the union I confess one nature" (History of ecumenical councils).
heretical monophysite shared the doctrine Dioscorus who, after Cyril, occupied the See of Alexandria. Dioscorus was supported by Emperor Theodosius II, who valued him as a fighter against Nestorianism. Eutychius was venerated by the court party, headed by Empress Eudoxia. On the advice of this party, Eutyches transferred his case to the court of the churches of Rome and Alexandria, presenting himself as the defender of the Orthodox teaching, and Flavian and Eusebius, Bishop. Dorilean by the Nestorians. Pope Leo the Great, aware of everything Flavian, agreed to the condemnation of Eutychius. Dioscorus, taking the side of the latter, asked the emperor to convene an ecumenical council to approve the pseudo-Orthodox teaching of Eutychius and condemn Nestorianism, allegedly revived by Flavian. Theodosius II appointed a council in Ephesus in 449, presided over by Dioscorus.
The council was attended by 127 bishops in person and 8 had commissioners. The Pope sent a "dogmatic epistle", famous for its purity of understanding of the truth and for its clarity of presentation (epistola dogmatica). Three of his legates were in session. Council meetings on the case of Eutychius began. Dioscorus did not read out the message of the pope, contented himself with confessing the faith of Eutychius and declaring that the two natures in Christ were not spoken of at the previous ecumenical councils. Dioscorus declared Flavian a heretic and defrocked, as well as Eusebius of Dorileus, Domnus of Antioch and Theodore of Cyrus. With them, for fear of violence, 114 bishops agreed. The legates of Rome refused to vote.
"When Flavian was leaving the cathedral hall," writes Bishop. Arseny, "the Syrian archimandrite Varsuma and other monks attacked him, and beat him so much that he soon died on the way to the town of Lydia, the place of his imprisonment."
Flavian's successor was Anatoly, a priest, confidant of Dioscorus under the imp. Yard. The emperor, deceived by his courtiers, confirmed all the definitions of the Ephesian "robber council."
Pope of Rome defends Orthodoxy St. Leo the Great. At the council in Rome, everything that was decided in Ephesus was condemned. The pope, in letters to the east, demanded the convening of a legal ecumenical council in Italy. At his request, the same demanded and app. Emperor Valentinian III. But Theodosius was under the influence of the Monophysite court party, especially Theodosius, and therefore did not heed the requests. Then, the court party lost its significance, the empress was removed under the pretext of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The party of the sister Theodosius, Pulcheria, an admirer of Patriarch Flavian, gained importance. His relics were solemnly transferred to Constantinople. Theodosius died soon after (450). He was succeeded by Marcian, who married Pulcheria.
AT Chalcedon legal 4th Ecumenical the cathedral. All the fathers on it were 630. Of the most remarkable were: Anatoly of Constantinople, who took the side of the Orthodox, Domnus of Antioch (deposed by Dioscorus and returned by Marcian), Maximus, put in his place, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea-Cappadocia, Blessed Theodoret, Eusebius of Dorileus, Dioscorus of Alexandria and others. The pope, who desired a council in Italy, nevertheless sent his legates to Chalcedon. Anatoly of Constantinople was the chairman of the council. First of all, the fathers took up the consideration of deeds robbery council and the trial of Dioscorus. His accuser was the famous Eusebius of Dorileus, who presented the fathers with a note outlining all the violence of Dioscorus at the robber cathedral. Having familiarized themselves, the fathers took away the right to vote from Dioscorus, after which he was among the defendants. In addition, many accusations were presented against him by the Egyptian bishops, who spoke about the immorality and cruelty of Dioscorus and his various kinds of violence. After discussing all this, the fathers condemned him and deposed him, just as they condemned the robber council and Eutyches. Those bishops who took part in the robber council were forgiven by the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, because they repented and explained in their defense that they acted under fear of the threats of Dioscorus.
Then the fathers began to define the doctrine. They were to present such a doctrine of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, which would be alien to the extremes of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The teaching between these extremes was precisely Orthodox. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon did just that. Taking as a model the statement of faith of St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, as well as the message of Pope Leo of Rome to Flavian, they thus defined the dogma about the image of the union in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ of two natures: “following the divine fathers, we all unanimously teach to confess ..... one and that but Christ, the Son, the only-begotten Lord, in two natures, inseparable, inseparable, indivisible, inseparable, cognizable (not by the difference of two natures consumed by the union, moreover, by the property of each nature preserved into one person and copulated into one hypostasis): not into two persons cut or divided, but one and the same Son and the only-begotten God the Word. " Such a definition of faith was condemned as Nestorianism, so was Monophysitism. All the fathers agreed with this definition. Blessed Theodoret, who was suspected of Nestorianism at the council, especially by the Egyptian bishops, pronounced an anathema on Nestorius and signed his condemnation. Therefore, the council removed the condemnation of Dioscorus and restored him to the dignity, as well as removed condemnation from Willows, Bishop of Edessa. Only the Egyptian bishops behaved ambiguously in relation to the definition of faith. Although they signed the condemnation of Eutyches, they did not want to sign the epistles of Leo of Rome to Flavian, on the pretext that, according to the custom existing in Egypt, they did not do not, without the permission and determination of their archbishop, who, in connection with deposition of Dioscorus, they did not have. The council obliged them to sign with an oath when an archbishop was installed. - When Marcian was informed that everything was done, he himself arrived at the cathedral for the 6th meeting, delivered a speech in which he expressed his joy that everything was done according to the general desire and peacefully. However, the meetings of the council were not over yet. The fathers were busy compiling 30 rules. The main subjects of the rules are church administration and church deanery.
After the council, the emperor issued strict laws regarding the Monophysites. Everyone was ordered to accept the doctrine determined by the Council of Chalcedon; monophysites to exile or exile; burn their writings, and execute them for their distribution, etc. Dioscorus and Eutyches were exiled to distant provinces.
The Council of Chalcedon approved the decisions not only of the three previous Ecumenical Councils, but also of the local ones: Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch and Laodicea, which were in the 4th century. From that time on, the leading bishops in the main five church districts began to be called patriarchs, and the most distinguished metropolitans, deprived of certain rights of independence, were given the title of exarch as an honorary distinction: for example, Ephesus, Caesarea, Heraclius.
Bishop Arseniy, noting this, adds: "The name was encountered before; so Emperor Theodosius, in a letter of 449, called the Bishop of Rome Patriarch. At the 2nd meeting of the Chalcedon. Council, the imperial representatives said:" let holy patriarchs of each district, two from the district will be elected for discussions about faith. "From here we see that this name has already come into official use. As for the name" pope ", in Egypt and Carthage, the common people called the bishops that took precedence, and the rest were with him "fathers", and these "grandfathers" (popes). From Africa, this name passed to Rome.
Monophysite heresy after the council
The Monophysite heresy brought more evil to the Church than any other heresy. The conciliar condemnation could not destroy her. The Monophysites, especially the Egyptians, did not like the doctrine of two natures in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the main thing about the human. Many monks in other churches were also opposed to this teaching and went over to the ranks of the Monophysites. It seemed impossible for them to ascribe to the Lord Jesus Christ a human nature similar to our sinful one, against the shortcomings of which all their exploits were directed. Even during the Council of Chalcedon, the monastics sent three archimandrites who undertook to defend the Monophysite doctrine and asked for the restoration of Dioscorus. After the council, some of the monks went straight from Chalcedon to Palestine and caused great confusion there with stories that the Chalcedon council restored Nestorianism. Ten thousand Palestinian monks, led by people from Chalcedon, attacked Jerusalem, plundered it, drove out Patriarch Juvenal, and put their Theodosius in his place. Only two years later (453), with the help of military force, Juvenal again took the throne of Jerusalem. The Monophysites staged similar disturbances in Alexandria. Here, military force did not lead to anything. The mob drove the warriors into former temple Serapis and burned alive along with the temple. Strengthened military measures led to the final separation of the Monophysites from the Orthodox Patriarch Proterius, who was put in the place of Dioscorus, and the creation of a separate society under the leadership of Presbyter Timothy Elur.
Taking advantage of the death of the emperor Marcian (457), the Monophysites of Alexandria staged a riot, during which Proterius was killed, and Elur was erected in his place, who deposed all the bishops of the Council of Chalcedon, and condemned the patriarchs: Constantinople, Antioch and Rome. Marcian's successor, Leo 1 Thracian (457-474). could not immediately suppress the uprising in Alexandria. To restore peace in the Church, he decided on a special measure: he demanded that all the metropolitans of the empire give him their opinion about the Council of Chalcedon and whether Elur should be recognized as the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria. More than 1,600 metropolitans and bishops spoke out in favor of the Council of Chalcedon and against Timothy Elur.
Then Leo deposed Elur (460). and appointed the Orthodox Timothy Salafakiol as Patriarch of Alexandria. The piety and meekness of this patriarch won him the love and respect of the Monophysites, and the Alexandrian church was calm for some time. He was also deposed (470 g). Patriarch of Antioch Peter Gnafevs. While still a monk, he formed a strong Monophysite party in Antioch, forced the Orthodox patriarch to leave the chair, and took it himself. In order to forever establish Monophysitism in Antioch, he, in the Trisagion, after the words: Holy Immortal- made a Monophysite addition - crucify for us.
But now, in 476, the imperial throne was occupied by Basilisk, who took it from Leo Zeno. In order to strengthen himself on the throne with the help of the Monophysites, Basilisk took their side. He issued a roundabout letter in which, condemning the Council of Chalcedon and the letter of Leo to Flavian, he ordered to adhere only to the Nicene symbol and the definitions of the second and third ecumenical councils, confirming this symbol. Such a message was to be signed by all the bishops of the empire, and indeed many signed it, some out of conviction, others out of fear. At the same time, Timothy Elur and Peter Gnafevs were restored to their chairs, and the Orthodox patriarchs - Alexandria and Antioch - were removed. The restoration of Monophysitism created great excitement among the Orthodox, especially in Constantinople. Here, Patriarch Akakiy was at the head of the Orthodox. The basilisk, wishing to prevent unrest that threatened even his throne, issued another circular letter, canceling the first, but it was too late. Zeno, with the help of the Orthodox, especially Akakios, defeated Basilisk and took the imperial throne (477). Now the Orthodox have again gained the upper hand over the Monophysites. After the death of Elur, Timothy Salafakiol again took the chair. But Zeno wanted not only the victory of the Orthodox, but also the accession of the Monophysites to Orthodox Church. He understood that religious divisions badly affected the well-being of the state. Patriarch Akakiy also sympathized with him in this. But these attempts to join the Monophysites, begun by Zeno and continued into the next reign, only led to unrest in the Church, and, finally, were resolved by a new heresy.
Died in 484 Patriarch of Alexandria Timofey Salafakiol. In his place, the Orthodox chose John Talaia, and the Monophysites Peter Mong, who began to work diligently in Constantinople for his approval, and, among other things, proposed a plan for the annexation of the Monophysites. Zenon and Patriarch Akaki agreed to his plan. And so, in 482, Zeno issues a conciliatory creed, on the basis of which communion between the Orthodox and the Monophysites was to be established. It approved the Nicene symbol (confirmed by the second Ecumenical Council), anathematized Nestorius and Eutychius with like-minded people, accepted 12 anathematisms of St. Cyril, it was stated that the only-begotten Son of God, descended and incarnated from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin Theotokos, is one, and not two: one in miracles and in sufferings that he voluntarily endured in the flesh; finally, anathema was pronounced against those who thought or are now thinking of anything other than what was approved at the Council of Chalcedon or another. Zeno wanted to achieve a connection by silence about the natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and an ambiguous expression about the Council of Chalcedon. Such a conciliatory confession was adopted by Patriarch Akakiy, Peter Mong, who received the Alexandrian see for this, and Peter Gnafevs, who again took the see of Antioch. But at the same time this conciliatory confession did not satisfy either the strict Orthodox or the strict Monophysites. The Orthodox suspected in him the recognition of Monophysitism, and they demanded an explicit condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon. John Talaia, not approved by the emperor at the Alexandrian see, went to Rome with complaints to Pope Felix II about Akakios, who had taken the enoticon. Felix, feeling completely independent of Constantinople after the fall of the Western Empire (476), condemned the enoticon as a heretical creed, excommunicated Akakios and all the bishops who accepted the enoticon, as well as Zeno himself, and even broke off communion with Eastern churches. Strict Monophysites, for their part, rebelled against their patriarchs Gnafevs and Mong, for the adoption of the enotikon, separated from them and formed a separate Monophysite society akephalites(headless).
Under Zeno's successor Anastasia (491-518). things were in the same position. Anastasius demanded that everyone take the enotikon. But the Orthodox have already managed to understand that condescending measures in relation to heretics do not bring good consequences and even damage Orthodoxy, so they began to abandon the enoticon. Anastasius began to pursue them, and, apparently, had already gone over to the side of the Monophysites. Meanwhile, ardent champions of Monophysitism appeared among the Akefalites - Xenay (Philoxenus), Bishop of Hierapolis in Syria, and Severus, Patriarch of Antioch. Severus, for the success of Monophysitism in Constantinople, suggested that Anastasius add an addition to the Trisagion Song: crucify for us. Patriarch Macedonian of Constantinople, fearing exile, was forced to obey the order of the emperor. But the people, having learned about this, staged a riot in Constantinople. Although Anastasius managed to temporarily reassure the people and even exile the Patriarch of Macedon into prison, nevertheless, an open war soon began between the Orthodox and the tsar. The leader of the Orthodox Vitalian, with his victories, forced Anastasius to promise to convene a council to confirm the sanctity of the Chalcedon Cathedral and restore communion with Rome. Anastasius died soon after (518), having failed to fulfill his promises.
Under his successor Justin (518-27), the patron saint of Orthodoxy, it again gained the upper hand. Relations with the Roman Church were renewed (519). under the new Patriarch John of Cappadocia; the importance of the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed, the Monophysite bishops were deposed, and so on.
Was represented by two bishops: Paschasinus and Lucinsius. The council issued 30 canons.
Overview of the meetings of the cathedral
The general direction of the council was largely clarified already at the first meeting, when the personal status of Dioscorus of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus, the main spokesman for the views of the "Eastern" or Antiochian group, was discussed. The papal legates demanded the expulsion of Dioscorus because he had offended Pope Leo, while the Egyptians and their allies strongly protested the presence of Theodoret, who was critical of Saint Cyril. Imperial officials refused both. It was decided to put both Dioscorus and Theodoret in the middle of the temple, like the accused, who, with full right to speak, should defend themselves. This was reasonable not only for reasons of justice, but also in connection with the main goal of the policy of Marcian and Pulcheria: to restore harmony within the imperial Church, centered around the two imperial capitals, Rome and Constantinople. This decision of the procedural question led to the fact that the meeting was almost completely occupied with a long reading of the protocol of the Council of Constantinople, which condemned Eutyches (448), and the protocol of the "Robber" Council (449). The reading was constantly interrupted by stormy cries from the bishops of various factions. The former members of the "robber" council, who signed the condemnation of Flavian and indirectly offended Leo by their refusal to read his message, tried to justify themselves, either accusing Dioscorus of blackmail and violence, or acting more honestly and asking the cathedral for forgiveness. The most compromised among them was probably Juvenal of Jerusalem, who, together with Dioscorus, was co-chairman of the "Rogue" Council. At Chalcedon he, far from convincingly, excused himself with ignorance3 and, making an eloquent gesture, got up from his place next to the friends of Dioscorus and went over to the Antiochenes and Constantinopolitans. Dioscorus, however, took a restrained and dignified position, expressing quite understandable irony in relation to the bishops who supported him in 449, but now took the side of his accusers. However, he ran into difficulties justifying his position in 449, especially regarding the rehabilitation of Eutyches. He very clearly expressed his own doctrinal position, which remained the position of the majority of opponents of the Council of Chalcedon: Christ is fully God and fully Man, and therefore He has "two natures", but after their combination it is no longer possible to speak of "two natures" that exist separately. one from the other, since their union into a single being is a perfect union. Dioscorus, of course, did not allow the use of the Greek word fisis ("nature") for anything other than "concrete reality." Moreover, as both he and his supporters pointed out, St. Cyril used the expression "the one nature of God the Word incarnate" and never specifically spoke of the two natures after their union. On the basis of this Cyrillic fundamentalism, Dioscorus considered that the condemnation of Flavian in 449. was correct: Flavian and Eusebius of Doryleus, Eutyches' official accuser in 448, spoke of "two natures after the Incarnation" and therefore were de facto "Nestorians". However, in Chalcedon, the majority argued that Dioscorus was wrong in seeing the contradiction between Cyril and Flavian.
The imperial officials in the final speech expressed their conviction that the condemnation of Flavian was unfair and therefore those who agreed with him, that is, those who led the "Robber" cathedral, Dioscorus, Juvenal (his transition did not help him yet!), Thalassius Caesarea and others must be put down. However, officials also said that such an action, requiring a fresh mind and free discussion, should be postponed until the next meeting. The meeting ended with the singing of "Holy God! Holy Strong! Holy Immortal, have mercy on us." This is the first known occasion when this chant was sung, which in later centuries will become so popular, but also arouse controversy.
Realizing that his position did not have the slightest chance of triumphing at the council, Dioscorus of Alexandria did not appear at other meetings. His deposition took place in his absence at the third meeting, but only after the summons had been handed to him personally three times. In addition, which is very significant, the decree on his deposition speaks only of disciplinary and canonical sins, and not of heresy. The official message sent to him is this: "Know that for the fact that you despised the canons and disobeyed this Holy and Ecumenical Council, not taking into account other crimes of which you are guilty, because, according to the canons, having been called three times a real Saint and By the Great Council, did not agree to give an answer to the accusations against you, you were deposed from the episcopate and deprived of any church rank by this Holy and Ecumenical Council on October 13"4. The purely disciplinary, and not doctrinal, character of the deposition will be duly noted by Anatoly of Constantinople (who knew Dioscorus well, for he was his Apocrysiar representative in the capital) at the decisive moment of the debate at the fifth session. The real purpose of his speech was to assert that even if Dioscorus accused Flavian of heresy for confessing "two natures after their union", then his own Cyrillic terminology was not necessarily heretical5. From this it is clear that there was no moment when the Council of Chalcedon retreated from its Cyrillic position, which it defended at any cost, even going against the current represented by the Roman legates. Of all the participants in the "robber" council, only Dioscorus was deposed. True, everyone else—including Juvenal of Jerusalem—not only repented, but also signed the deposition of Dioscorus.
Loyalty to Cyril was emphasized with invariable clarity at the third and fifth meetings, when the question arose of a new doctrinal definition. The need for a new definition was expressed by the imperial officials at the beginning of the second meeting, and at first it caused almost universal discontent. Indeed, the papal legates were instructed by Pope Leo to insist that the Epistle to Flavian was already a sufficient expression of Orthodoxy and that there was no need for further debate, but only a formal acceptance of the "faith of Peter." In general, the reluctance to publish doctrinal definitions was a general trend. The Eastern bishops themselves - including Dioscorus and his followers - preferred to regard the Nicene Creed as a perfectly sufficient expression of Orthodoxy. In any case, neither the First Council of Ephesus (431) nor the Second ("Robber", 449) issued any confession of faith, but only condemned the actual or supposed Nestorians in the name of the Nicene faith6. Moreover, the First Council of Ephesus approved a resolution (subsequently incorporated as the 7th canon) forbidding "the presentation, composition or writing of any statement of faith other than that which was determined by the Holy Fathers at Nicaea with the Holy Spirit"7. This decree was constantly referred to by the Alexandrians, who had not yet recognized the Council of Constantinople in 381. and the Creed attributed to him, which was in fact an extension of the Nicene Creed. The Church of Alexandria defined Orthodoxy as a strict adherence to the Council of Nicaea alone, rejecting the Council of 381. and the Creed attributed to him. At the Council of Chalcedon, it was attributed to this cathedral for the first time8; this suggested that the Ephesian ordinance was only a special statement, unrelated to the issue under discussion at Chalcedon.
The demand by officials for a doctrinal definition was in complete agreement with the position of the Empire in relation to the Ecumenical Councils: the emperor convened such meetings with a specific goal - to obtain clear instructions for his policy of ensuring the unity of the Church. In 451. a mere reference to the authority of Nicaea was clearly not enough to achieve such clarity, since he was referred to by opposing parties, each of which claimed to be faithful to him precisely in their beliefs. The officials' prudent tactic was to have all the various documents (presumably reflecting " ancient faith") have been read and thus the bishops themselves would have recognized the need to eliminate existing contradictions.
What should have been read were two Creeds, Nicene and Constantinople, two "Epistle" of St. Cyril to Nestorius, a conciliatory "Epistle" of Cyril to John of Antioch (433) and the Tomos of Leo to Flavian. The bishops unanimously welcomed both the Symbols and the epistles of Cyril. However, the bishops of Illyricum (theoretically subordinate to the papal vicar in Thessalonica) and Palestine objected to certain expressions of Pope Leo's "Tomos", seeing in them a contradiction to the faith of St. Cyril. This was the main question: it confirmed the need, expressed by officials, to develop a new definition that would suit both Rome and the Cyrillic majority of the cathedral.
Pope Leo's "Tomos" was written by a man with little knowledge of the details of the Christological controversy in the East, but he made an unusually strong impression with his harmonious logical construction, in which he managed to avoid both the kerygmatic style of Cyril and the errors of Nestorius. It is not known whether the pope knew Greek, but he studied the problems by reading Tertullian and Augustine, as well as the treatise "On the Incarnation", the compilation of which was entrusted in view of the Christological disputes to St. John Cassian. From Latin theology, he rather drew such an understanding of salvation, which especially emphasizes the ideas of mediation and reconciliation, that is, the restoration of the correct and initially harmonious relationship between the Creator and the creature, than the understanding of deification, theosis, so loved by the Greek Fathers. It was therefore natural for him to speak of Christ as having two natures or substances (substantia), although he did not quite understand that the Latin word substantia was usually translated into Greek as hypostasis, which gave his theology a suspiciously Nestorian sound. Based common sense, he emphasized an important truth, namely, that both natures of Christ necessarily retain their properties after union (agit utraque forma quod proprium est), since not in the abstract, but in concrete reality, Christ never ceased to be both God and Man. He added a notion important to the East: the actions inherent respectively in Deity and humanity are carried out in union with one another (cum alterius communione). It was this concept of the unity of the Deity and humanity in Christ that was the basis of the doctrine of theosis (deification). And finally, Leo, undoubtedly knowing what is really important for Cyril's theology and what is especially opposed to the "non-Storian" Antiochian school, affirms theopaschism. "It can be said," he writes, "that the Son of God was crucified and buried, since we understand the unity of personality in both natures." But since the correct translation into Greek of persona is πρόσωπο (prósopo), his presentation of the personal unity of Christ should only be understood as "prosopic" (as in Antioch) and not as "hypostatic" or "natural" (as in Cyril). .
The storm caused by objections to the text of Pope Leo, the fear of some that all Cyril's theology would be rejected "was so great that the officials had to use their power to close the meeting. But first they agreed that Anatoly of Constantinople (an obvious Cyrillic, former friend Dioscorus, a clever church diplomat) will meet with the opposition in order to calm their doubts. Atticus of Nikopol (in Epirus) - one of those who objected - especially insisted that the hitherto unread third "Epistle" of Cyril, containing the Twelve Anathematisms, be read in the plenary session, which should also be taken into account when considering the Orthodoxy of Leo. In essence, the debate at the third meeting turned out to be a trial of the Orthodoxy of Pope Leo, which was judged on the basis of the initial premises drawn from Cyril.
In the end, it was only at the beginning of the fourth session of the council that Leo's "Tomos" was declared free from any suspicion of heresy. After the statement of the legate Paskhazin ("Venerable Leo, archbishop of all churches (!), gave us an exposition true faith... The council professes this faith ... without changing, without deleting or adding a single remark") the bishops one after another declared that Leo was in agreement with Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Cyril. The bishops of Illyricum also signed the "Tomos ", declaring that after meetings with Anatoly they can do this, being quite confident in the Orthodoxy of Archbishop Leo, "since the legates explained to us what seemed contradictory in the expressions (of Leo)". A similar statement was made by the bishops of Palestine13. Although this meeting formally and in accordance with the instructions that Pope Leo gave to his legates - "Tomos" was accepted as an exposition Orthodox faith- it looked as if Leo was judged and acquitted on the basis of Cyril's Christology as the criterion of Orthodoxy.
The same meeting was marked by the formal acceptance of Juvenal of Jerusalem and other former friends of Dioscorus into full members of the council. They, of course, also subscribed to Leo's "Tomos", and the Cathedral Fathers welcomed the restored unity of the Church. But in reality, the future turned out to be not as bright as expected: the attempts of the cathedral Fathers and officials to achieve doctrinal consent from the leading group of monks, including the famous Barsaum of Syria, were not crowned with success. These outstanding ascetics, who also took an active part in the "Robber" Council of 449, were presented to the Council, but turned out to be less flexible than the bishops. They refused to anathematize not only Dioscorus, but even Eutyches, and thus led the anti-Chalcedonian opposition for decades to come.
The position of the monks, their claims to be the only legitimate followers of St. Cyril, and their refusal to reject Eutyches, all clearly showed that the preservation of Orthodox Christology, including the legacy of Cyril, requires a doctrinal definition. At the fifth meeting of the council, there were no more protests against the officials who insistently demanded a doctrinal definition. At this meeting, on October 22, only a select few were present: officials, papal legates, bishops of the main sees (Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem), and fifty-two other bishops. The meeting was more like a steering committee than a plenary session. The draft statement, probably written by Anatoly of Constantinople, was submitted for discussion. Its text was not included in the minutes, but, judging by the heated discussions that followed,14 it is clear that it contained a clause about naming the Virgin Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos), that is, a decisive anti-Nestorian statement confirming the decision of the First Council of Ephesus, and also defined the essence of Jesus Christ as connection of two natures, resorting to strictly Cyril's terminology. The adoption of such a text would probably satisfy Dioscorus and help avoid a schism. Its strongly pronounced Cyrillic character provoked a brief objection from John of Germanicene, a friend of Nestorius and Theodoret, who apparently opposed the inclusion of the term Theotokos. His lonely voice was drowned out by cries: "May Mary be named in writing the Mother of God!" Much more serious was the energetic and official protest of the Roman legates: "If the terms are not agreed with the message of the apostolic and blessed husband Leo, the archbishop, give us a copy, and we will return (to Rome) so that the council can meet there." As we remember, the official position of the Roman Church was that all issues had already been resolved by Leo's "Tomos" and that essentially no other resolution was needed. Since the officials demanded a resolution, it should at least be in full accordance with the "Tomos". Faced with this difficulty, the imperial officials, whose main task was to ensure the unity of both Rome, proposed the creation of a new commission of representatives of all parties to revise the project. The bishops raised a noisy protest against such a procedure. Most of them were satisfied with the existing version. The appeal of officials to the emperor and the direct order of Marcian eventually convinced the assembly to form a commission to create a new project.
Historians interpret this episode in different ways, depending on the premises from which they proceed. Apologists for papal primacy see here a direct victory for the authority of Rome. Eastern anti-Chalcedonites, past and present, deplore what they see as a tragic capitulation to the pope and the emperor. Historians sympathetic to Antiochian and Western Christologies express their annoyance at the "blindness" of the Greek episcopate, unable to understand the obvious heresy of Dioscorus, and praise the firmness of the legates. However, none of the participants in the council perceived this event in such a simplified form. In fact, all the bishops signed Leo's "Tomos" at the previous meeting. In their view, this was a perfectly sufficient expression of their condemnation of Eutyches and their acceptance of the formulation of two natures, so vigorously put forward by Leo. When the officials asked them a direct question: “Who are you for, Leo or Dioscorus?” they answered without hesitation: “We believe like Leo”16. They hesitated to write in the decree "in two natures," and not "from two natures," because they foresaw dangerous consequences a complete rejection of the terminology used by Cyril. For them, as for the Fathers of the Fifth Council, which will meet in a century, that is, too late to heal the schism, neither the terminology of Cyril ("from two natures"), nor the terminology of Leo ("two natures after their union") deserved a separate and self-sufficient status: both served only to reject the false doctrine, that is, Nestorianism and Eutychianism, respectively.
Be that as it may, the commission met and worked out the famous Chalcedonian definition, a subtle compromise attempting to satisfy the followers of Cyril (using the terms Theotokos and "combining in a single person"), as well as the Roman legates (claiming that we know Christ "in two natures ... with the preservation of the properties of each of them"), and wisely confessing the mystery of the Incarnation, using four negative adverbs ("inseparable, invariable, inseparable, inseparable").
The status of this definition or oros (????) did not claim to new Symbol Faith. The use of the term "Chalcedonian Symbol" in modern textbooks17 is erroneous. This text was not intended for liturgical, sacramental, or "symbolic" use and was understood only as a definition excluding both the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies. The preamble very clearly defines this negative, "refuting" goal of the creators of the text. The definition includes the full text of the two Symbols—Nicene and Constantinople—followed by the statement that these two Symbols are "sufficient" for knowledge of the truth. And only then, after this conservative and protective statement, does the definition mention Nestorianism, Eutychianism, and the Epistles of Cyril and Leo (calling each by name), written "to establish the true faith." This mention of Cyril and Leo once again reflects the council's conviction that Orthodoxy is expressed by both of them, and not by one or the other separately. This decree was not intended to replace either the "Epistle" of Cyril or the "Tomos" of Leo as an expression of the true faith; it had to find a Christological terminology consistent with the faith of both. Therefore, it is completely wrong to say that Chalcedon renounced Leo (in the statement about the hypostatic union). Here is the paragraph that was so heatedly discussed at the fifth meeting:
"So, following the Holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, one and the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the true God and true man, one and the same, consisting of a verbal (rational) soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and the same consubstantial with us in humanity, similar to us in everything except sin; born of the Father before the ages according to the Godhead, but He was also born in last days for us and our salvation from the Virgin Mary and Mother of God according to humanity; one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only Begotten, cognizable in two natures (?? ??? ???????) inseparably, unchangeably, inseparably, inseparably; the difference of His natures never disappears from their combination, but the properties of each of the two natures are combined in one person and one hypostasis (??? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ???????????????) so that He is not cut and divided into two persons, but He is one and the same Only-Begotten Son, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; just as the prophets of ancient times spoke of Him, and as Jesus Christ Himself taught us, and as He gave us the Symbol of the Fathers.
This definition was signed by 454 bishops at the sixth meeting, on October 25, in the presence of the emperor Marcian himself, who addressed the assembly first in Latin and then in Greek and who was greeted as "new Constantine", and his wife Pulcheria as "new Helen".
For further history What mattered was what happened at the ninth and tenth sessions (October 26-27): the rehabilitation of two prominent bishops condemned by the "Robber" Council, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa. Theodoret was criticized by the First Council of Ephesus and Cyril in their writings; Yves wrote a letter to the Persian Maris, accusing Cyril of Apollinarism. Both rehabilitations were uttered only after both Theodoret and Yves formally anathematized Nestorius. At first, Theodoret's hesitations aroused the indignation of the bishops, but he was recognized as Orthodox as soon as he finally said: "Anathema to Nestorius!" Theodoret was in fact a learned and moderate man, the organizer of reconciliation between Cyril and John of Antioch in 433. He clearly hoped that unity could be restored without anathematizing former friends. But the rehabilitation of him and Iva, which meant the acceptance into communion by the council of two former prominent and outspoken critics of Cyril, would be used by the "fundamentalist" followers of Cyril (who would become known as the Monophysites) in their denigration of the entire Council of Chalcedon.
Emperor Marcian, acting on the advice of his wife Saint Pulcheria, at the very beginning of his reign issued a number of acts in support of Orthodox diaphysites. By his order, the relics of St. Flavian were transferred to the capital and buried in the church of the 12 apostles. The bishops, defrocked by the "robber council" and exiled by Emperor Theodosius, were returned from exile. Eutychius Marcian ordered to be expelled from his monastery and sent into exile. Archbishop Anatoly of Constantinople, appointed by Dioscorus, after meeting with the legates of the Bishop of Rome, expressed written agreement with the tomos of Leo the Great, giving an example to other bishops who participated in the “robber council”, who now declared in writing that in Ephesus they signed under pressure and under compulsion under the acts of excommunication of Flavian, Eusebius of Dorileus, Theodoret, Willow of Edessa and Domnus of Antioch, and with their signatures they testified to their complete agreement with the tomos of St. Leo. A similar signature was given by Archbishop Maximus, appointed to the See of Antioch after the deposition of Domnos. In the epistles to Leo the Great, the bishops of the East, one after the other, expressed their unanimity with him. Dioscorus, however, did not want to accept defeat and, overestimating his strength, tried to oppose himself to the emperor: not afraid of being accused of treason, he, in conversations with friends, which soon became known in Constantinople, bragging, claimed that in Egypt the real emperor - he, Dioscorus, not Marcian. Thus, he created a situation convenient for the supreme power, which turned its back on the Monophysites, to declare it, Dioscorus, and not the emperor Theodosius, the main culprit of the crimes committed at the "robber cathedral" in Ephesus.For the accusation of Dioscorus and the final rejection of the Eutychian heresy, a council was needed, and the emperor Marcian proposed to convene it. But Pope Leo, in the face of his actual triumph and the defeat of the Monophysites, changed his attitude towards convening a council, which he insisted on earlier in his correspondence with Theodosius. Now he no longer saw the need for it, and in connection with this he wrote to Marcian: “Your zeal for the faith is enough for us; the world returns to the Church, and through the Church to the state. Let us be satisfied with what God inspires you, and let us no longer produce regrettable disputes, the mere shamelessness of which is already a disgrace to the Church. Let us try, as far as possible, to avoid raising ungodly and foolish questions, which the Holy Spirit teaches us to silence at their first appearance; it is not good to constantly examine what we should believe, as if there could be room for doubt; and now it should be known that the opinions of Eutyches are impious and that Dioscorus, who accused Flavian, sinned against the faith.
But the wickedness of Eutychius, known to Leo the Great and the emperor Marcian, was not so well known in Egypt (where Dioscorus was still supported by the majority of Christians, especially among the Copts), and also by many monks not only in Egypt, but also in Syria, Palestine, and even in Constantinople, where Eutyches had many supporters. The suspicion that Leo's tomos contained veiled Nestorianism was expressed by the bishops of Illyricum. And if in Rome itself the monopoly on the truth of the throne of the Apostle Peter (the later formula "Roma locuta est" - "Rome said" denoted the end of the theological dispute after the Roman See had expressed its position on the topic of this dispute) was increasingly taken for granted, this does not mean that a similar idea was shared in the East, where the highest teaching authority of the Church was identified with the Ecumenical Councils. Emperor Marcian also adhered to this idea. In the course of further correspondence, the pope was forced to agree to the convening of the council.
On May 17, 451, Emperor Marcian, in his own name and on behalf of his co-ruler Valentinian, issued a message addressed to the metropolitans on the convening of an Ecumenical Council on the September Kalends, that is, at the beginning of the month, in Nicaea, glorified by the fact that the First Ecumenical Council was held there under St. Constantine, who rejected the heresy that shook the Church: “Victory Valentinian and Marcian, glorious, victorious, permanent emperors, to all the most reverent bishops of all countries. Divine works should be preferred to all occupations. For we believe that with the good pleasure of the almighty God, society will be preserved and improved. And since certain perplexities have been aroused regarding our Orthodox faith, as evidenced by the message of the most God-loving Archbishop of the glorious city of Rome, Leo, it was pleasing to us that a holy council be held in Nicaea, the city of Bithynia ... he will sin before the Divine Himself and offend our piety. May your holiness also know that our majesty will also be at this venerable cathedral, unless some state needs delay us in the campaign. Metropolitans were asked to take with them to Nicaea as many bishops in their jurisdiction as they deemed necessary.
At the end of the summer, the imperial mail brought bishops from Illyricum, Asia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt to Nicaea. The West was represented only by the legates of the pope: Bishop Paskhazin of Lilibea of Sicily, Bishop Lucentius of Ascolia, and Roman presbyter Boniface (who arrived in Nicaea with a notary), as well as two bishops from the African diocese. Clerics, monks, and laity, who were not indifferent to the outcome of the forthcoming council, also flocked to Nicaea at their own discretion. The situation in the city, due to the accumulation of dissident and somewhat restless people, was tense and nervous. Difficulties arose in supplying the accumulated people with food. In this regard, August Pulcheria ordered the removal of monks and laity from Nicaea, who arrived in this city without permission, without the permission of their bishop.
Meanwhile, the September kalends passed, and the emperor Marcian, busy organizing the defense of Illyricum and Thrace from the invasion of the hordes of Attila, did not appear at the cathedral. The bishops who had gathered at Nicaea asked Marcian for permission to begin the synodical acts in his absence, but the emperor, fearing that disturbances might arise in the council, similar to those that had ruined the reputation of the second council convened at Ephesus, rejected this request and ordered that the council be changed so that he passed closer to the capital. The choice fell on another Bithynian city - Chalcedon, located on the Asian shore of the Bosporus, opposite Constantinople: “If it pleases your piety,” he wrote in a message to the bishops who had gathered in Nicaea, “please go to the city of Chalcedon. We will not be slow to come there, although we are delayed here by public affairs. For, we acknowledge, everything should be preferred to what is conducive to the truth and the Orthodox faith, as well as to the peace and well-being of the holy catholic Churches.
The move to Chalcedon was completed in early October. AT " church history» Evagrius Scholastica perfectly describes the place where the cathedral took place, the church of St. Euphemia, which has not survived to this day: a smoothly rising road leads to this church, so the path to the church of the martyr is not difficult for those who, falling into the fence of the temple, unexpectedly themselves are at the top, so that the eyes, surveying everything from this height, see both a creeping smooth and even plain, green with grass, agitated by cornfields and delighting the eye with the view of various trees, and mountains overgrown with forests to the very peaks, arched and rising proudly, and changeable waters, sometimes purple in peace and meekly and joyfully playing with high banks where there is no wind, sometimes boiling and raging waves, with ebb and flow, gravel, algae and light shells willfully drag with them. The temple is located opposite Constantinople, so it looks great against the backdrop of this great city. There are three huge buildings in the sacred enclosure: one is open, decorated on all sides with columns and an oblong courtyard; the other behind it is almost equal to it in width, length and columns, differing only in that it is covered with a roof; at its northern wing, rising towards the sun, is a round building in the form of a rotunda, framed inside by skillfully decorated columns of the same materials and the same height. They raise the upper floor up to the very roof, so that, (being) there, those who wish can pray to the martyr and be present at the sacraments. Inside the rotunda, in its eastern part, there is a beautiful chapel, where the most holy remains of the martyr are in an oblong cancer ... extremely skillfully made of silver.
There are different data on the number of participants in the cathedral. It went down in history as the cathedral of 630 fathers. Among them, obviously, are those bishops who were not personally present in Chalcedon, but for whom other bishops, usually their metropolitans, were authorized to sign the conciliar acts. “According to official documents, the number of its members reached 630 ... The council itself, in a letter to Pope Leo, had 520 members.” In any case, it was the most representative Ecumenical Council in terms of the number of participants. It was attended by the primates of the Churches: Anatoly of Constantinople, Dioscorus of Alexandria, Maximos of Antioch, Juvenaly of Jerusalem; Legates of the Bishop of Rome. Emperor Marcian did not appear in Chalcedon by the opening day of the cathedral, October 8, but sent his representatives there - 18 senior dignitaries, headed by the master of the army, the consular and patrician Anatoly, who presided over most of the cathedral meetings. Two notaries of the imperial consistory, Veronician and Constantine, acted as cathedral secretaries and translators, translating documents read out from Latin into Greek or from Greek into Latin.
The dignitaries, led by the patrician Anatoly, took their places at the altar barrier. Opposite them were benches for accusers, accused, petitioners and witnesses. The fathers of the cathedral sat to the right and left of the presidium between the columns, the rows of which stretched from the entrance to the temple to the altar. On one side of the presidium were the papal legates, then the archbishops of Constantinople and Antioch, the archbishops of Caesarea of Cappadocia Thalassios and Ephesus Stephen, and then the metropolitans of Syria, Asia and Pontus, and behind them the bishops who depended on them. The opposite side was occupied by Archbishops Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenaly of Jerusalem, Bishop Quintillus of Heraklia of Macedon, representing the Archbishop of Thessalonica, Bishop Lucian, representing Bishop Kiriakos of Heraclia of Thrace, and the bishops of Egypt, Palestine and Illyricum. The distribution of bishops in places corresponded not only to the location of the dioceses, but also to the position that most of them occupied before the “robber cathedral” and partly on it itself, so that like-minded people or patrons of Eutychius ended up on the left side of the church, and their opponents on the right. In the middle of the church, on a movable portable lectern, lay the Gospel.
The papal legate Paskhazin was the first to take the floor at the meeting of the council, which took place on October 8, 451. Going out to the middle of the church, he said, addressing the senators and other dignitaries who took their places on the presidium: “His Beatitude and apostolic bishop the city of Rome, the head of all the Churches, gave us a command with which he honored to order that Dioscorus ... not be present at the council; if he tries to do this, he would be expelled ... So, if your nobility commands, then either let him leave, or we leave. The dignitaries asked him to explain what the fault of Dioscorus was. In response, Bisian Lucentius, Bishop, said that he had admired for himself the right to judge over bishops and "dared to form a council without the authority of the apostolic see, which never was and should not be." From a canonical and historical point of view, the assertion that this has never happened and should not be is highly doubtful. The presidium did not comply with the demand of the legates to remove Dioscorus: since the charge against him was brought forward, it had to be proven.
Dioscorus was asked to leave his seat and take a bench in the middle of the temple, where there were places for the accusers and the accused. The process both in state courts and in church courts, in accordance with the norms of Roman and canon law, was of the nature of a private prosecution, therefore, a voluntary prosecutor was needed to consider the case. This role was assumed by the experienced jurist in the past, Bishop Eusebius of Dorileus, who was deposed at the "robber council" at the suggestion of Dioscorus. Eusebius began by announcing the petition filed by him in the name of the emperors Valentinian and Marcian to revise the results of the "robber council"; in this petition, Eutyches was called a heretic. After hearing the accusation contained in it, Dioscorus demanded that the minutes of the Second Council of Ephesus be read, with which Eusebius agreed. Dioscorus, however, insisted that before reading the protocols, an “examination” of “faith” should be carried out, in other words, he wanted to divert the fathers of the council from the accusatory process towards the theological discussion, apparently sincerely believing that he would be able to prove the Nestorian errors of his opponents. . But the dignitaries presiding at the council proposed to start with the reading of the documents.
After reading the message of the emperor Theodosius to Dioscorus, in which Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus was forbidden to attend the cathedral in Ephesus, “the most glorious dignitaries and the most famous senate (as it is said in the council acts) said: “Let the most venerable Theodoret come in to participate in the council, because he and the most holy archbishop Leo returned the bishopric, and the most sacred and pious emperor commanded to be present at the holy council. When the blessed Theodoret entered the church of St. Euphemia, from the side where the bishops of Egypt, Palestine and Illyricum were stationed, there were exclamations: “Have mercy, faith is perishing; he is driven out by the rules; cast him out"; and on the other side of the temple they exclaimed: “We signed on unwritten paper; we were beaten, we subscribed. Send out the Manichaeans; drive out the enemies of Flavian; cast out the enemies of the faith." Dioscorus, accusing his opponents of sympathizing with Theodoret, said: “Why is Cyril, who was anathematized by him, being expelled?” In response, he heard: “Dioscorus, murderer, cast out. Who does not know the actions of Dioscorus?" . The council began with a tough confrontation between its participants, some of whom suspected others of hidden Nestorianism, and those, in turn, of their opponents, of unanimity with Eutyches. The noise did not stop for a long time, until the presidium demanded in the harshest way to stop it.
The reading of documents resumed, continuing until the evening. Along the way, the dignitaries interrogated the participants of the "robber cathedral" about the course of its meetings and their participation in them. With special passion they interrogated the accused - Dioscorus. And he, as A.V. Kartashev, “behaved like a narrow fanatic, courageously. The majority of the episcopate betrayed him, referring to the terror of Dioscorus. “Oh, poor things, they were afraid! Dioscorus scoffed at them. It was the Christians who were afraid! Oh, holy martyrs, did you act like that?!”
After reading the Epistle of St. Cyril to John of Antioch in 433 and the exposition of the faith of St. Flavian, compiled by him at the request of Emperor Theodosius on the eve of the “robber council”, exclamations were heard from both sides about Orthodoxy and the unanimity of both saints. The presidium invited all participants in the council to speak out about Flavian's Orthodoxy. One by one the bishops, beginning with the papal legate Paskhazin, voiced their conviction that Flavian had not deviated from Orthodoxy. Archbishops Anatoly of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, and Thalassius of Caesarea expressed themselves in this sense. Archbishop Juvenaly of Jerusalem, who served as deputy chairman at the “robber council” in Ephesus, together with other bishops of Palestine, as a sign of a change in his attitude towards St. Flavian, got up and moved from the left side of the temple to the right. They were followed by the bishops of Illyricum and four of the 19 bishops of Egypt. Dioscorus, asked as the accused, was the last to stand his ground: “It is obvious that Flavian is condemned for recognizing two natures after the union. But I have the testimony of the holy fathers Athanasius, Gregory, Cyril in many places that should not recognize two natures after the union, but one incarnate nature of the Word.
The secretary of the Veronician Cathedral continued the reading of the documents. In view of the fact that a significant majority of the participants in the council expressed their conviction in the Orthodoxy of St. Flavian, the bishops who had previously participated in his condemnation began to justify themselves by the fact that in Ephesus they were pressured, in which they accused not only Dioscorus, but also others key figures of the "robber cathedral".
At the end of the first day of the conciliar acts, the presidium of the cathedral - “the most glorious dignitaries and the most famous senate” - issued a resolution: “We see that the most accurate study of the Orthodox and Catholic faith should be more carefully carried out the next day in the presence of the cathedral. But since it turns out that Flavian of blessed memory and the most venerable Bishop Eusebius were unjustly condemned ... then it seems to us fair and charitable, if it pleases ... our sovereign to subject those who then had power and chairmanship at the council to the same punishment. Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus and Basil of Seleucia were arrested. All of them, according to the conclusion of the dignitaries representing the emperor, were subject to defrocking for the iniquities committed by them. The meeting ended with the singing of Trisagion - the Trisagion, documented for the first time - according to legend, this hymn began to be used for the first time in Constantinople under the holy Archbishop Proclus. After the singing, the exclamations reflected in the cathedral “Acts” continued for a long time: “Many years to the emperors! The wicked always run! Christ deposed Dioscorus. This is a just sentence; this is a holy cathedral… God avenged the martyrs.” In conclusion, the presidium demanded from the participants of the council a written statement of faith.
The second meeting, traditionally dated October 10, although "the modern researcher of the acts of the Chalcedon Cathedral E. Chrysos dates it October 14", was held without the participation of Dioscorus and other previously arrested bishops and was devoted to the study of faith - the Christological teaching of the Church. At the very beginning of the meeting, it turned out that the demand of the presidium to provide their statements of faith was ignored by the participants in the council. Bishop Cekropius of Sevastopol, expressing the mood of the majority, said: “(When) the case of Eutychius arose, the model in relation to it was given by the most holy archbishop of Rome, and we follow it and everyone signed the message.” Some of the fathers at the same time referred to the 70th canon of the III Ecumenical Council, interpreting its content as a ban on the compilation of new symbols. The Nicene symbol in its original version was read out, and then the symbol of 150 fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council - from the surviving ancient acts, it is in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon that its text is first given. The message of St. Cyril to John of Antioch and the tomos of Leo the Great to Flavian, as well as excerpts from the writings of Saints Hilary of Pictavia, Gregory the Theologian, Ambrose of Milan, and Blessed Augustine were read out.
Bishop Atticus of Nikopol expressed doubts about the Orthodoxy of some places from the tomos of Pope Leo; in order to study the relevant expressions from the tomos, he proposed to announce the “12 anathematisms” of St. Cyril, but the presidium, knowing that the “anathematisms” of Cyril served as a tool in the hands of Eutychius and his associates, refused this request to Atticus. Commenting on this moment of conciliar acts, V.V. Bolotov wrote: “If the question were raised openly, as Atticus suggested, then it would be necessary to review the entire dogmatic activity of Cyril, and then it would be revealed that not every line from the writings of Cyril should be taken into account by the Church, and even more so to the dogmatic leadership. ... St. Cyril in his polemic with Nestorius went to extremes. True, Atticus himself sought, of course, to ensure that the opposite conclusion was made, undermining by the authority of St. Cyril the significance of the diaphysite expressions from the tomos of Leo the Great, which diverged from Cyril's formula about "the one nature of God the Word incarnate." Not wanting to take risks, the representatives of the emperor, in order to convince or reassure those who doubted the theological impeccability of the tomos, proposed to form a special commission chaired by Archbishop Anatoly of Constantinople, which was instructed to draw up an agreed draft of the cathedral oros. At the end of the meeting, the Illyrian bishops asked the dignitaries to release the arrested hierarchs and admit them to the council, but this request was denied.
On October 13, the bishops sat in the absence of dignitaries under the chairmanship of the papal legate Paskhazin. This session was devoted to the trial of Dioscorus. The first notary of the cathedral, Archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople, read out the petition addressed to the council by Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaea, in which he, having outlined the criminal actions of Dioscorus taken against him and against the reposed Saint Flavian, insisted: “Decide: that everything committed against us has no force; that the documents drawn up against us unjustly must not harm us in the least; that we hold the priesthood; his bad teaching is to anathematize; approve the word of piety; and he himself, for his insolence, should be purged with punishment, so that for the rest of his life he will serve as an example for the admonition of all who would take it into their heads to act like him.
Three times the messengers of the cathedral came to Dioscorus to call him to the cathedral court, and three times he refused to obey the council, citing the first time for a ban on the part of the guard, the second, when the guard allowed him to leave to appear before the fathers of the cathedral, for illness, and finally in the third time - declaring that he "has nothing to add to what has already been said ... "What I said, I said, and that's enough for me." After Dioscorus three times refused to appear at the council court, the canonical opportunity arose to try him in absentia, and this court was opened. When asked by Paskhazin what punishment the accused deserved, the answers followed: “Worthy of deposition.” Dioscorus was charged with unanimity with the heretic Eutyches and communion with him, refusal at the second council in Ephesus to read out the message of Pope Leo the Great, excommunication of the pope, complaints about injustices and insults filed by the Alexandrians and among them the relatives of St. Cyril, and, finally, the refusal to appear before the court of the cathedral . Bishop Paskhazin, who presided at the council court, proposed that a decision be made: “His Holiness and Beatitude Archbishop of the great and ancient Rome, Leo, through us and through the present holy cathedral, together with the most blessed and all-praised Apostle Peter, who is the stone and affirmation of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the Orthodox faith, deprives him of his episcopacy and alienates him from any priestly dignity. The formula of the verdict stylistically sounded like a qualified papist, but this side of the matter then did little to worry the bishops of the East. Therefore, she did not raise any objections. One by one, starting with Anatoly of Constantinople, the fathers of the council spoke out for the deposition of Dioscorus, while, for the most part, they called the refusal to appear at the council court the main reason for defrocking him. Of those present, 192 fathers voted for the condemnation. Then they put their signatures under the conciliar verdict. “Among those who signed the verdict (according to the Latin text - 308 participants, the Greek - 252) there are, - as A.V. Khrapov, are active figures of the "robber's cathedral", who also took part in the present cathedral". Dioscorus was informed of the verdict of the council in writing. A report on the decision taken in his case, with its detailed justification, was sent to the emperors Marcian and Valentinian, as well as to Saint Pulcheria.
On October 17, the fathers of the cathedral again met under the chairmanship of "the most distinguished and most glorious dignitaries." The bishops of Palestine and Illyricum, who had previously expressed doubts about the Orthodoxy of some expressions from the tomos of Leo the Great, this time withdrew their objections to the tomos. The question of the return to the council of the former leaders of the "robber cathedral" was again discussed, except, of course, Dioscorus. The basis for indulgence towards them was their declared agreement with the tomos. The dignitaries addressed this request to the emperor. Marcian left the decision of this issue to the discretion of the fathers of the council, after which Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus and Basil of Seleucia were released and took their places among the participants in the council.
13 bishops of Egypt, who refused to put their signatures under the tomos of Leo the Great, filed their special confession of faith, in which, in order to dissociate themselves from extreme monophysitism, they anathematized the heresy of “those who say that the flesh of our Lord was from heaven, and not from the Holy Virgin Mary Mary, in the likeness of all of us, except for sin. But the fathers of the council were not satisfied with such a confession and demanded that their brethren anathematize Eutyches and agree with Leo's tomos. They uttered an anathema to Eutychius, but they demanded more from them: “Let them sign the message of Leo. He who does not sign the letter is a heretic." In response, the bishops from Egypt said: “We cannot sign against the will (of our archbishop),” in other words, they asked to be allowed to postpone the signing of the tomos until a new archbishop of Alexandria was appointed to replace the deposed Dioscorus. They begged for a reprieve, arguing that if they put their signatures here and now, they would be killed in their homeland - so great was the authority of the Alexandrian Archdiocese for the Egyptian Christians. The participants in the council did not want to meet them halfway, but the dignitaries who led the actions of the council showed compliance, granting the request of the Egyptian bishops.
On the same day, 18 archimandrites from Constantinople, led by Karos and Dorotheos, mostly like-minded Eutyches, addressed the fathers of the cathedral with a petition, in which they asked none of the monks to be expelled from their monasteries. In another petition, they asked for the restoration of Dioscorus to the throne of Alexandria. Among the archimandrites invited to present their petitions to the fathers of the cathedral was the famous Varsuma, at the sight of which the fathers of the cathedral began to exclaim: “Varsuma devastated all of Syria, he brought a thousand monks against us ... Drive out the murderer Varsuma! To the murderous square! Anathema Varsume! To exile Varsum!” The council reminded the archimandrites of their duty of unconditional obedience to their bishops and gave Karos, Dorotheus and Varsuma a respite until November 15 to “think about obedience to the holy and ecumenical council”, otherwise they “will be deprived of their degree and all dignity and communion, and at the same time dismissed from the abbots of the monasteries. If they try to escape, then ... that very punishment has power over them, that is, when an external power ... helps the recalcitrant.
The culminating event of the IV Ecumenical Council was the adoption of the dogmatic oros at a meeting held on October 22. This meeting began with dramatic disagreements that seemed to jeopardize the success of the council, which was called upon to affirm the Orthodox doctrine of the incarnation of the Savior and to establish unanimity and peace in the Church. The day before, on October 21, at a private meeting of the fathers of the cathedral, a commission chaired by Archbishop Anatoly of Constantinople presented a draft Christological oros, the text of which has not been preserved. It is only known that it said that the Lord was "of two natures", and not "in two natures", and in this he differed from the tomos of Leo the Great. When at the council meeting on October 22 this draft was announced by the Deacon Asklepiades of Constantinople, Bishop John of Germanicus, taking the floor, said: “The definition is not well drawn up and must be corrected.” This criticism, coming from the bishop of the city that was the birthplace of Nestorius, provoked a sharp and violent reaction from most of the fathers, except, as it says in the "Acts" of the council, "Roman and some Eastern." Terrible exclamations were heard: “Everyone likes the definition. This is the faith of the fathers. He who thinks contrary to this is a heretic. If anyone philosophizes otherwise, let him be anathema! Nestorian out!" .
The papal legates, apparently in solidarity with the critical assessment of the project of oros by John of Germanicus, saw in the stormy reaction of the majority of the participants in the council an attempt at Monophysite revenge and, what might have seemed no less important to them, disrespect for the voice of the primate of the Roman Church and declared: “If you do not agree with the message of the apostolic and the most blessed husband of Pope Leo, then order them to give us letters of return, and with this the council will end. The threat of disruption of the cathedral was, of course, unacceptable to the government of Marcian, and at the suggestion of his representatives, it was decided to form a new commission to revise the draft already worked out. Most of the fathers did not want to agree with the revision of the presented text, fearing that in the new edition it would deviate into Nestorianism: “Everyone liked the definition,” they exclaimed, “the Nestorian out; get out the theomachists!.. The universe is Orthodox. Everyone liked the definition yesterday. Orthodox Emperor. August Orthodox. Augusta expelled Nestorius… Whoever does not sign the definition is a heretic… Holy Mary is the Theotokos… The Holy Spirit dictated the definition.” The dignitaries tried to reason with the indignant fathers, reminding them of the condemnation of Dioscorus that had just taken place: “Dioscorus said that he deposed Flavian because he said: “Two natures,” and the definition says: “From two natures.” To this, Archbishop Anatoly objected: “Dioscorus was deposed not for his faith, but because he excommunicated the lord Archbishop Leo and, being summoned for the third time, did not come; for this he was deposed."
Then the dignitaries, in order to save the situation, urgently turned to the emperor, since Chalcedon was near the capital, and a command was received from him to draw up a new commission with the inclusion of Archbishop Anatoly, papal legates, six bishops of the Syrian diocese and three bishops each from the dioceses of Pontus, Asia , Thrace and Illyricum. Otherwise, each bishop must submit a written confession of faith through his metropolitans, or the council convened in Chalcedon will be dissolved and a new council will be held in the West. But supporters of the immediate adoption of the drawn up project did not retreat: “Many years to the emperor! Either let the definition be valid, or we will leave ... Let the contradictory ones appear; contradictory - Nestorians; those who disagree, let them go to Rome.” Then the dignitaries, who conducted the course of the conciliar acts, put the question point-blank: ““ Dioscorus said: “from two natures” I accept, but “two (nature)” I do not accept. And the most holy Leo says that in Christ there are two natures, united unmistakably, unchangingly and inseparably in one only-begotten Son, our Savior. So, whom do you follow: the most holy Leo or Dioscorus?”… The bishops exclaimed: “As Leo, so we believe. Contradictory - eutychianists. Leo set forth the Orthodox. Taking advantage of the agreement declared by the fathers with the formula of Leo the Great, the dignitaries proposed: “So, add to the definition, according to the thought of the most holy ... Leo, that in Christ there are two natures, united invariably, inseparably and unmerged”, after which the three presiding dignitaries, together with 23 fathers, among of whom were papal legates, Anatoly of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Dorileus and other bishops representing the dioceses of Syria, Pontus, Asia, Thrace and Illyricum, went to the chapel of the church of St. Euphemia, where her relics rested.
After a long discussion, the vicissitudes of which remained unknown, the members of the commission returned to the fathers of the council who were waiting for them, and the archdeacon of Constantinople Aetius announced the text worked out in the chapel - the famous Oros of Chalcedon, which, following the symbols of the first two Ecumenical Councils, included an exposition of the Orthodox teaching on the incarnation: Following the holy fathers, we all agree to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity, truly God and truly Man, the same from a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity. in everything like us, except for sin, born before the ages from the Father according to Divinity and in the last days for us and for our salvation from Mary the Virgin Theotokos according to humanity, one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the only-begotten, in two natures, not merged, invariably, inseparably, inseparably knowable, so that the combination does not violate p difference between two natures, but all the more the property of each nature is preserved and they are united into one Person and one Hypostasis, not into two persons cut or divided, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as in ancient times the prophets ( taught) about Him and (how) the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us and (how) handed over to us the symbol of the fathers.
In the Oros of Chalcedon, the creeds contained in the conciliatory dogmatic formula of 433, included in the letter of St. Cyril to John of Antioch, known under the title "Euphrenephosan and Urani" ("Let the heavens rejoice"), and in the tomos of Pope Leo the Great, are synthesized. In oros, the concepts of “hypostasis” and “person” are identified, in which previously not completely identical content was invested; the Christological terminology in it is identical to the terminology of the Trinitarian. This applies in the same way to the terms "hypostasis", "person" (prosopon), "nature" (ousia). These words mean the same thing whether they are used to expound Trinitarian or Christological dogma. The pinnacle of the apophatic theological thought of the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon was the use of four negative concepts to define the image of the union of the Divine and human nature in Christ: "uncombined, unchanging, inseparable, inseparable." This elaborate formula points to the incomprehensibility of the mystery of the Incarnation, and at the same time it rejects both its Nestorian (indivisible, inseparable) and Monophysite (uncombined, unchanging) interpretation. After the Council of Chalcedon, the Monophysite terminology (mona physis - one nature), which Saint Cyril still resorted to, was outlawed in Orthodox Christology, but from Cyril comes the idea of the identity of the Divine Word as one of the Divine Hypostases as one of the Divine Hypostases with the Hypostasis of the God-man Jesus Christ. “The paradox of the Chalcedon oros,” wrote Archpriest Georgy Florovsky, “is that the “perfection” of Christ “in humanity” is immediately confessed ... and it is denied that Christ was a (simple) man - He is God incarnate ... He did not “take on a man”, but “became a man.” The dogmatic oros of the Fifth Ecumenical Council was to later serve as an explanation of this paradox.
After listening to the text composed in the chapel of St. Euphemia, the fathers of the cathedral “exclaimed: “This is the faith of the fathers. Let the metropolitans sign at once; let them immediately sign in the presence of the dignitaries themselves; well-defined, let it not be delayed. This is the faith of the apostles. We all agree with her; we are all so wise." But the dignitaries declared that the drafted definition should be submitted to the supreme authority.
(Ending follows.)
Ephesus, secured by the Council of Conciliation in 433, nevertheless continued to put pressure on a significant part of the Church of Antioch, and Alexandria was now the main opponent of Antioch.
Despite all the mitigating conditions, the conciliar-conciliatory position of John of Antioch, coupled with Theodoret, did not eliminate the fact that there were a number of bishops of the "East" who completely rejected all the results of the Third Ecumenical Council. The government arrested and exiled them. And the government exiled their invincible leader Alexander of Hierapolis even to the Egyptian mines. To finish off the remnants of Nestorianism, the government issued a "persecutive" law forbidding Nestorians even to call themselves Christians, but only with the nickname "Simonian" glued to them by the police, with a ban on gathering for worship.
This turn in the state policy of "finishing off" the remnants of Nestorianism could not but worsen the fate of Nestorius himself. As early as 432, Pope Celestine found that the abandonment of Nestorius in Antioch hindered the elimination of ecclesiastical turmoil. Although Nestorius had resigned from his post himself, there were now rumors from the friends around him about the illegality of his removal. John of Antioch himself asks the government to take Nestorius away from Antioch. At first he was taken to Petra of Idumea, but from there he was soon transported to the Egyptian Libyan desert, to the great oasis (now Hargeh), and he began to be forgotten.
After the departure of Nestorius (431), he was destined to live another 20 years - until 451
After the death of Cyril, some calm came in the East. The appearance of the exiled committee Irenaeus in the role of Metropolitan of Tire can serve as a sign of it. The emperor reconciled with him. Domnus and other bishops became convinced of his Orthodoxy and, although he was a second-marriage, he was appointed bishop with the consent of Proclus of Constantinople.
It seemed that everything was calming down in Constantinople, although personal changes were taking place there. Proclus died in 446. He was succeeded by the presbyter Flavian, a moderate man, a stranger to one-sided school predilections, rather closer than Proclus to the formulas of the Antiochenes. Dioscorus, therefore, was purely unpleasant.
At the court of Emperor Theodosius II, his sister Pulcheria no longer enjoyed the same influence. Theodosius II was in a quarrel with his wife, Empress Eudokia. She now lived separately in Jerusalem. She was the daughter of an Athenian professor of rhetoric and was baptized only before her marriage to Theodosius II. Chrysapius, the chief chamberlain, was the power at the court. Next to him was his Godfather monk Eutychus (Ευτυχης, not Ευτυχιος), the leader of a significant group of monks who kept in touch with Alexandria and Egypt. The imperial court generally kept pace with the bishops of Constantinople. But Dioscorus, who inherited the pretensions and courage of his predecessors, conspired with Chrysapius and Eutychus to divert the court from the influence of the bishops of both Constantinople and Rome and subordinate it to his own - Alexandrian.
The figure of Eutychus grew into an all-imperial ("ecumenical") size. "Eastern" tried to attack him. Domnus was the first to write to the emperor about Eutychus as an Apollinarian. Β 447 Theodoret published his "Eranist" ("Collector") - a dialogue that exposes the teachings of Eutychus, without naming the latter. In the three parts of the dialogue - Immutable, Unmerged, Passionless (Ατρεπτος, Άσύγχυτος, "Απαθής") - Theodoret denounced three delusions: about the mutability of God, ο the merging of natures and ο the suffering of God. With a large number of quotations from the holy fathers.
But Domn and all the "Eastern" overestimated their strength. Backstage Eutychus defeated them. And yet unexpectedly and devastatingly. On February 16, 448, an imperial rescript appeared on matters of faith. It renewed its condemnation of the writings of Porfiry and Nestorius (what a comparison!). Then all creeds (!) are condemned, except for 1) the Nicene oros, 2) the Ephesian oros and 3) "Blessed memory of Bishop Cyril" (12 anathematisms). Adherents of Nestorius are subject to excommunication and deposition. Irenaeus, "it is not known how elevated to the bishopric of Tire," ordered to leave the bishopric and put on a lay dress (!). Without hierarchs, the emperor deposes the bishop. The definition of faith of 433, i.e., in essence, the oros of the Ephesian Council of 431, is rejected! 12 anathematisms are equated with the decisions of the ecumenical councils. None of the previous emperors dared to do such things in the field of faith.
On November 8, 448, the usual "synodos of endimus" gathered in Constantinople. Constantinople did not have its own bishops, and the people present were from different regions. Eusebius declared to this synod that he had evidence that Eutychus, at least in the past, held heretical thoughts. This open uprising against the temporary worker frightened many. Eusebius had already been threatened with exile to an oasis for slander. Eutychus refused to appear immediately in the synod on the basis of a vow of principle - "to remain in seclusion, as in a coffin." He was given a reprieve until November 22. There was a rumor that Flavian began the persecution of the monks. Eutychus referred to illness. But finally, on November 22, he appeared at the synod, but, so to speak, "armed": under the protection of the police and the high dignitary Florentius, accompanied by a crowd of monks. Florentius took a subscription from the fathers of the synod that Eutychus would be freely released, no matter what resolution was passed against him.
But after 20 years of new disputes in Rome, they decided to go deeper. The mere information of Mary Mercator was not enough. Blessed student. Augustine Prosper of Aquitaine studied the question of the incarnation of God the Word, and Pope Leo himself prepared for the question. He was no longer satisfied with the conciliatory formula of the Synod of Constantinople. He asked: "What is meant by confessing two natures before union and one after? Just the opposite: before union - one nature of the Divine; after union - divine and human nature, united without confusion."
At court, the influence of Eutychus remained, and he (like Nestorius in his time) desired an ecumenical council, counting on victory. In the meantime, a suspicious attitude had developed towards Flavian. The emperor at the beginning of 449 even humiliated him by demanding a confession of faith. Flavian submitted and wrote such a confession: “Confessing Christ in two natures after His incarnation from the Holy Virgin and incarnation, we confess in one hypostasis and one person one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And we do not deny (!?!) that the one nature of God the Word incarnated and incarnated (μίа φύσις του θεού Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη και ένανθρωπίσασα) for of two natures, Our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same... And above all, we anathematize the impious Nestorius."
Ephesian Ecumenical Council of 449 ("Robber" - "Latrocinium Ephesinum").
On March 30, 449, the emperor signed a decree ο convening an ecumenical council. And his goal is clearly indicated in a direction favorable for Eutychus and Dioscorus: to uproot the heresy ... Nestorius (!). An artificial theme - like last year's snow. Here is an illustration of the frequent misunderstanding by ruling contemporaries of where things are going. In fact, the church was seized by the Monophysites, and to divert short-sighted eyes they shouted that Nestorianism was in danger.
In accordance with such an "anti-Nestorian" goal of the council, Blessed. Theodoret is warned not to take it into his head to go to the cathedral: he is not invited. On the contrary, his fanatical adversary, Archimandrite Varsum, is specially called in. Dioscorus is directly appointed chairman with the support of a special commission (in our opinion - "presidium") from Juvenal of Jerusalem, Falassius of Caesarea-Cappadocia and three more bishops. What is surprising that the cathedral of Dioscorus prepared in such a way received the nickname "robber's, Συνοδος Ληστρικη".
The council was appointed in Ephesus for August 1, 449. And before that spring (April, 8-27), Eutychus obtained an official revision of the acts of the former November council in Constantinople, 448, under the pretext that some kind of forgery was included in the protocol. Nothing was found, but one official testified that he had seen the pre-written condemnation of Eutychus even before he appeared for trial. But a clerical draft of a court ruling is simply a technical inevitability, and an unsigned paper is not a document.
An instruction was sent to Edessa to press Willow again. The governor of Osroena began interrogation. Having listened only to the side hostile to Iva, he, on this basis, deprived Iva of his freedom and locked him in prison.
Pope Leo received an invitation to the council on May 12. He didn't even think to move. Attila was at the gates of Rome. And besides, dad did not foresee the importance of the matter. He sent legates with letters to the emperor, to Flavian, to the cathedral, and to the monks of Constantinople.
Papa sent legates not very successful. Julius, Bishop of Puteol, was old. Presbyter Renat died on the way. The third legate was the young Ilar in the rank of deacon. He could do well if he were empowered. But under the bishops, he lost the possibility of complete freedom of action. The legates sided with Flavian. Despite the fact that the pope asked in his letters to be indulgent towards Eutychus, "if he renounces his delusions," Eutychus slandered that the legates were ready to sell Orthodoxy for the treat of Flavian. Eutychus acted; the legates were divided at the council: Julius, who did not know Greek, sat with the bishops, and Ilarus, who knew Greek, far away, with the presbyters and deacons.
Dioscorus (as Cyril in his time) arrived with 20 bishops and a large retinue of paravalans. Varsuma also came to his aid with a large crowd of monks from Syria and Mesopotamia. Not understanding Greek, they looked like foreigners brought in as hired bodyguards. And the emperor himself supplied Dioscorus with direct military protection, which surrounded the cathedral church, where the Council of Ephesus took place in 431.
15 bishops arrived with Juvenal from Palestine. From Syria (Antioch) there were approximately the same number, but without Theodoret and Willow and from the "opposition" to Domnu. Thus, the cathedral was "picked up". And, although the legates in letters brought, in essence, the condemnation of Eutychus, the instructions from Constantinople predetermined everything in the other direction. Imperial officials - committee Elpidius and tribune Eulogius - in addition to monitoring the external order, had a general instruction, the meaning of which was to justify Eutychus and depose Flavian and other bishops suspicious "for Nestorianism." All former members of the Flavian Council of 448 did not receive the right to vote. Thus, about 42 bishops were present here only as spectators, as defendants.
Dioscorus held the first meeting on August 8. It opened with the reading of imperial letters. After reading the first letter, the legate of the pope, Bishop Julius, stood up and declared that now was the time and he was obliged to read the message of the pope. Dioscorus interrupted and reassured him that the moment would be right. After this, more than once or twice Julius got up and declared the need to read the papal letter. But his Latin speech was literally trampled on by the excuses and gestures of Dioscorus. So the voice of the Pope was not heard. According to the meaning of the imperial letter, the question of faith, proposed for discussion at this council, does not boil down to the formulation of a dogma, but only to a revision-canonical question: was the condemnation of Eutychus correct at the council of 448?
Therefore, first of all, they brought Eutychus to the council, listened to his complaint and his confession of faith, and then read the acts of the November council of Flavian. Flavian asked to bring Eusebius of Dorileus, for it was not he who was Flavian, but Eusebius raised and formulated the accusation against Eutychus. But the committee of Elpidius declared that this was unacceptable. The emperor did not allow the leaders of the council of 448 to be present here. In fact, Eusebius was under arrest. Yes, and Flavian himself was considered among the defendants audited by this council, and still did not have the right to vote.
When, during the reading of the acts of the council of 448, the demand was read to Eutychus that he recognize "two natures", the excited paravalans and the monks of Varsum shouted: "On the fire of Eusebius, burn him alive! Cut in two, dividing Christ in two!"
The confession of Eutychus "two natures before union and one after union" was approved by the council. "So we believe," said Dioscorus. Eutychus was declared Orthodox and restored to his rank. His monks are exempt from the punishments imposed by Flavian. There were timid objections both before the meeting and during the meeting. But Dioscorus interrupted them arrogantly and with threats of deposition and exile, and from his entourage simply cries were heard: "Drown all dissenters in the sea!"
Emperor Theodosius II approved the actions of this Council in the conviction that only now Nestorianism was finally crushed. Signatures were even taken from the bishops that they would not raise new dogmatic questions.
Flavian, Eusebius and Theodoret wrote appeals to the pope. The appeals of Flavian and Eusebius, opened in 1873, were not published until 1882. To prevent the appeals from being sent to Rome, the police did not issue legates from Asia Minor. I had to act discreetly. Ilar managed to escape and bring to Rome both Flavian's appeal and the information about the unheard-of cathedral. Two clerics of Eusebius of Dorileus brought to Rome the text of his appeal. Soon Eusebius himself arrived there. The appeal from Theodoret was brought to the pope by his presbyters. Immediately, Pope Leo summoned many bishops to Rome and raised his voice against the violence of Ephesus. Letters were addressed from Rome: to Emperor Theodosius II, to his sister Pulcheria, to Archbishop Flavian, to the clergy and monastics of Constantinople. The pope laid all the blame on the arbitrariness of Dioscorus, rejected all the decisions of his council and called for a new council in Italy, which was supposed to correct all the violence that had occurred. At this time, the court of the Western emperor from Ravenna moved to Rome. The Pope prompted Emperor Valentinian III, his mother Galla-Plakida and his wife Eudoxia to write to Constantinople in support of the pope's protest. Theodosius II immediately replied that the pope was worried in vain. Everything is going well: the "disturbers", Flavian and others, have been eliminated, the peace of the church has been restored and the faith has been strengthened. It was "police" well-being and sincere faith in him blind state power. Council resolutions were simply carried out. Flavian of Constantinople, under the supervision of the eunuch Saturninus, was sent into exile. On the way, from the shocks he experienced, he died. It is possible to consider Dioscorus the spiritual murderer of Flavian, but the complete silence in the letters of Flavian himself about alleged physical beatings on the part of Dioscorus himself forces us to refrain from repeating these exaggerations in some Greek writers.
Domnos of Antioch went to a monastery near Jerusalem, from which he left. Maximos, a deacon from the opposition to John, was made bishop of Antioch. Willow was imprisoned, Theodoret - in a monastery near Apamea. The See of Constantinople was replaced by Anatoly, Apocrysarion of the Church of Alexandria close to Dioscorus. Dioscorus himself ordained him, and then notified Pope Leo of this appointment, seeking his consent. Leo replied that he agreed if Anatoly and other supplied bishops would accept, along with Cyril's letter to Nestorius, his - Leo - tomos. Leo sent with this letter to Constantinople a whole deputation of two bishops and two presbyters.
IV Ecumenical Council of 451 in Chalcedon.
But... terror from above ended with the sudden death of Emperor Theodosius II. He died suddenly after falling off his horse while hunting. He left no children. The closest heiress was his sister Pulcheria. The Synclitus (Senate) recognized it. Pulcheria resolutely took power. And above all she overthrew the dictatorship of Chrysaphia over her late brother. She executed Chrysaphius. Pulcheria did not consider it possible to keep power in her hands alone and suggested that Senator Marcian formally marry her on the condition that she still remain a girl. She proclaimed him emperor and herself invested him with power. Until now, there was a secular pagan rite of coronation - putting on a crown on the heir or the newly elected emperor. Pulcheria wished to church this act. She asked Archbishop Anatoly of Constantinople in 450 to crown Markian in church.
This was the first act in Byzantine history church wedding emperor. And, probably, the biblical rite of chrismation entered into it at the same time.
Terrorized earlier by Chrysapius, Pulcheria hid her sympathies for both Flavian and Pope Leo. Now everything has changed. The remains of Flavian were solemnly brought to Constantinople and buried in the church of the 12 apostles. All those exiled by Dioscorus are returned. Eutychus removed from Constantinople outside the city, under supervision. The faint-hearted bishops themselves began to repent for the fact that they "submitted to violence" at the Dioscorus Council (!!). Anatoly was forced to kindly receive the Roman legates and sign the tomos of Pope Leo (!). Maximus of Antioch - also (!). They didn't want to give up power. Β Rome statements of "repentant" poured in to Pope Leo. Dioscorus, beginning with the non-recognition of Marcian as emperor in Alexandria, still continued to think about the return of his triumph.
A fanatic to the point of insanity, Dioscorus aggravated his position by the fact that at the time of the accession of Pulcheria, according to contemporaries, “he pretended to be the same ruler of the“ ikoumeni ”as the basileus of Constantinople, he himself wanted to reign over the diocese of Egypt, declaring that this the diocese belongs to him rather than to the emperor."
It was politically stupid, just as his "robber" unction in 449 was stupid. The new government did not turn Dioscorus into a political martyr. But it used him as a scapegoat for the religious policies of Theodosius II. The court could not declare the error and crime of the "emperor". Guilty was in everything, "of course", only Dioscorus (!!).
Anatoly, having betrayed Dioscorus, continued to bring all the participants in the Ephesian "robbery" to sign the tomos of Pope Leo. And it began to seem to Pope Leo that everything had settled down without any council. Moreover, the West was swallowed up by the invasion of the Huns. Attila interested the "Western" more than some Eutychus. 451 was the year of the Battle of Catalaun against the Huns (Châlon sur Marne).
And in the East, "its own eastern" heart was beating. In Constantinople, they believed that without a council it was impossible to "revise" the entire episcopate. You can not crush Dioscorus and his party (no small). In addition, we must finally establish the formula of the Christological dogma, since it has already been found. Otherwise, disputes again cannot be avoided. It was decided to assemble the cathedral most bishops in famous Nicaea.
IV Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon 451
The naive provincial Dioscorus did not want to believe that the palace revolution had also overthrown his dictatorship. As a member of the local diocesan administration of Egypt, he dared not even recognize the legitimacy of the new emperor Marcian, but soon saw his mistake. Only yesterday everything and everything was subject to him, and suddenly everything slipped away from his hands. Β 449, immediately after the "Robber" Council and the expulsion of Flavian, Dioscorus arrived in Constantinople, as a triumphant, personally appointed his apocrysarium (i.e., resident of the Alexandrian see) Anatoly as archbishop of the capital. But Anatoly, as a resident of the capital, was not blind. He clearly saw the irreversibility of the coup. And, having changed Dioscorus, he switched to the service of a new course of liquidating the whole action of Eutychus - Dioscorus and orienting theology to the tomos of Pope Leo, sent to Constantinople even before the "Robber" Council. A special delegation of the pope in the person of two bishops and two presbyters demanded for the sake of church peace to sign the tomos of the pope. Anatoly did it first. Hundreds of bishops rushed to sign him, complaining that they had previously signed under the acts of Dioscorus under duress. Maximus, a protege of Dioscorus at the See of Antioch, also signed. At the same time, letters of repentance from bishops poured into Rome itself. It seemed to Rome that everything was going well, that no more council was needed, since almost all the hierarchs subscribed to the message of the pope. They did not understand that Vostok had a different mindset, that there were not enough authoritarian decrees to appease it. It is also necessary to tame the element of alarmed "public opinion" through the procedure of conciliar competitions, through this difficult tribute to party trends in theology. Cathedrals for the East are lightning rods, palliatives and cures for dogmatic fevers, which relieved the acuteness of the disease for a certain period and contributed to its healing with the passage of time.
Ignoring the opinion of Rome (they saw that he was not a judge in these matters), the imperial government ordered for the "churchification" of his victory over Eutychus - Dioscorus, mockingly nicknamed "Pharaoh", and over their "Egyptian-foreign" heresy - Monophysitism - build a cathedral at Nicaea. Nicaea was an optimistic myth. They remembered only the first solemn victory over the terrible heresy by the power of the church-state authority of the ecumenical council and forgot at what cost this victory paid off - at the cost of 60 years of Arian reaction in the easternmost episcopate. Be that as it may, the imperial decree of May 17, 451 convened an ecumenical council on September 1 precisely in Nicaea.
Pope Leo resigned himself to the fact and appointed two bishops and two presbyters as his legates. He added to them the fifth, the Greek bishop Julian of Kos, as a valuable expert and translator. Julian stayed in Rome for a long time, knew perfectly well the moods and affairs of the West, as well as his East, and was fluent in two languages. In 449, at the "Robber" Council, the ambassadors of Pope Leo, without knowledge of the Greek language, found themselves in a rather helpless position. For the eldest of his legates, Paskhazin, Bishop of Lilybae (in Sicily), Pope Leo demanded the presidency, which is canonically natural for the alter ego of the pope himself. Over 500 bishops were brought to Nicaea at the appointed time on public funds. In addition to five legates, only two more Africans represented the West. The rest of the mass consisted of the eastern episcopate. And this is a typical proportion for all ecumenical councils. "The healthy do not need a doctor, but the sick" (Matthew 9:12). The Ecumenical Councils were a remedy for the heresy-stricken East. The West at that moment had its own next alarm. There was an invasion of the Huns in Europe, and the pope considered it impossible to leave Rome in a moment of danger. Emperor Marcian himself urgently had to go on a campaign to the northern borders in order to bar the Huns from invading the empire. This indirectly contributed to the lure of the Huns to the deep West, where in the same 451, when the IV Ecumenical Council was being held, they suffered a severe defeat on the Catalaunian fields (in present-day France, near Chalonsur-Marne). Delayed by front-line concerns, but having set himself the task of attending the cathedral in person, Marcian ordered to "pull up" the cathedral as close as possible to his capital residence. Not so distant and Nicaea was replaced by a very close metropolitan suburb - Chalcedon. This is the current Kadikoy opposite Constantinople, on the Asian shore of the Bosporus. There, in the huge basilica of the martyr Euphemia, there was a convenient place for a meeting of a large assembly, numbering over 500 people. The government of Marcian, taught by the bitter experience of two previous, anarchically flowing ecumenical councils (the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus in 431 and the "Robber" Council in the same place in 449), decided to take responsibility for the external order. All the technique of presiding, giving votes to speakers, voting, collecting signatures, etc., was entrusted to a presidial commission of 18 people - the oldest officials and senators. These de facto chairmen sat at the head of the assembly with their backs to the balustrade separating the altar apse. Perpendicular to their table, following the shape of the rectangle of the basilica, chairs and benches for members of the cathedral stretched in long rows, divided into right and left side, with a free passage in the middle. For the first time, such a distribution of seats was established, which later became traditionally exemplary for future cathedrals and fixed on the icons of ecumenical councils. The imperious chairmen, observing the principle of hierarchical seniority, however, seated the members of the council at the same time according to party affiliation, anticipating to some extent the current parliamentary order. At the head of the right row (according to the orientation of the temple, and to the left, if viewed from the perspective of the senatorial presidium), the legates of the Roman pope were seated, followed by Anatoly of Constantinople, according to the 3rd canon of the II Ecumenical Council, followed by Maximus of Antioch, then Thalassius, Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia, and Stephen of Ephesus. The left row (i.e., to the right of the chairmen) is headed by a sinful the Alexandrian pope Dioscorus. Next to him right hand on holding the "Robber" Cathedral of Juvenal of Jerusalem. Behind him is the deputy bishop of Thessaloniki. Further - by belonging to these dioceses, the bishops of Egypt, Palestine and Illyria. The cathedral opened on 8 October.
What was it like for the legates of the pope to see a heretic condemned by the pope seated opposite them as a full member of the cathedral! Of course, as soon as everyone was seated, the church chairman of the cathedral, legate Paskhazin, demanded from the royal presidium that Dioscorus be expelled from the council before the start of the case, otherwise the legates of Rome would immediately leave the cathedral. The presidium objected: it is impossible to expel without a trial, that's what the council is for, to be such a court. Since the legates motivated the exclusion of Dioscorus by a specific listing of his wines, the presidium caught the legates on this, declaring: the formal process of legal proceedings has opened, the accusing party has already spoken, now it is the turn of the accused party. Dioscorus has lost the right to sit in his place: the place of a member of the cathedral is the place of a judge, and he is now an accused, so let him sit in the middle, in the dock. I had to obey. The cathedral was entered into the right banks. Otherwise, with the departure of the delegates of Rome, he would have lost the authority of universality. Dioscorus could have unbridled, and new chaos would have resulted, as at the councils of 431 and 449. From this anarchy and disruption, the cathedral was saved by the barrier of state control. Here is an illustration of one of the cases of a complex principled and tactical issue of the relationship between church and state, when reasonable and appropriate interference and pressure of state power can save us from anarchy, that is, from disastrous pseudo-freedom.
They appealed against this violence to Pope Leo and were acquitted and de jure restored by the Council of Rome in 445. It remained to carry out this restoration through a real ecumenical council. Now, as liberated from the palace and Dioscorian terror, Theodoret and Iva, of course, arrived in Chalcedon. But for the sake of the legal form, they remained behind the doors of the meeting. At the mention of the name of Theodoret, the Roman legates immediately demanded that he be introduced as a necessary witness and member of the council, already acquitted by the pope. In the part of the cathedral sitting to the left, this caused the first outburst of indignation. Shouts were heard: "Down with the enemy of God, teacher Nestorius!" They were answered from the right: "The murderers of Flavian, drive them out of here! Get out of the Manicheans! Out of the heretics! Down with the murderer Dioscorus!" On the left again: "He (i.e. Theodoret) anathematized Cyril! What then? Now they want to expel Cyril ?!" The chairmen calmed the storm by not seating Theodoret among the members of the council before the formal acquittal, but by seating him in the middle, as a witness, next to the prosecutor Eusebius. Such brief exclamations were included in antique time in ritual and business and holiday gatherings. They were recorded by official scribes and were included in the protocols. They played the role of the current parliamentary group statements and resolutions.
For a very long time, until late in the evening, the minutes of the "Robber" Council and, in connection with it, the Flavian Council of Constantinople in 448 were read. And here we must do justice to Dioscorus. He behaved like a narrow fanatic, courageously. The majority of the episcopate cowardly betrayed him, referring to the terror of Dioscorus. "Oh, poor things, they were afraid!" Dioscorus scoffed at them. "It was the Christians who were afraid! Oh, holy martyrs, did you act like that?!" When Dioscorus was reproached for his personal addiction to Eutychus, he sincerely objected that he had nothing personal here: “If Eutychus philosophizes contrary to the dogmas of the church, then he is worthy not only of punishment, but also of fire. my mind is directed to the divine, I do not look at faces and do not care about anything except my soul and the right faith.
When, among various materials, the conciliatory epistle of St. Cyril to John of Antioch in 433 and the creed of Flavian in 449, this caused a decisive manifestation among the members of the council: "Glory to Cyril - we also believe!" The "Eastern" (that is, the Antiochians) explained: "Flavian himself believed the same way, for what was he condemned?! Leo, Anatoly, and the Empress believe this way, and we all believe the same way!" The secular chairmen of the council, wishing to capture and consolidate the moment of unanimity, proposed that this thesis of agreement between Cyril and Flavian be voted individually. The church chairman, Bishop Paskhazin, accepted this proposal and himself was the first to give an example of open voting in a positive sense. The example was infectious. Many began to vote in the same way, including Thalassios of Caesarea-Cappadocia, one of the vice-chairmen of the Dioscorus Council of 449. Another chairman, Juvenal of Jerusalem, seeing the old game irrevocably lost, stood up and not only declared his agreement with such a vote, but , as we have at a primitive rural gathering, he moved from the left half of the benches ("Dioscorian") to the right ("Roman"). In obedience to their head, so did all the Palestinian bishops. The Illyrians did the same. Of these, only Attik Nikopolsky evaded the vote, hastily leaving the church under the pretext of an alleged acute illness. Even from the retinue of Dioscorus, 4 Egyptian bishops subordinate to him decided on the same demonstration of open voting.
The meeting ended by candlelight. The secular chairmen nevertheless formulated conclusions that the next session will have to draw up, namely: a) that at the council of 449 the bishops were not free to express their opinions and b) that the chairmen of the council responsible for this violence should be deposed. Dispersing, the members of the cathedral sang Trisagion - the Trisagion: "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us!" This is the first historical evidence of the frequent performance of the Trisagion that began from that time.
Two days later, on October 10, a second meeting was held, but the persons declared guilty and subject to condemnation at the end of the last meeting were no longer invited: Dioscorus, chairmen of the council of 449, Juvenal of Jerusalem (his demonstration did not help him), Thalassius Caesarie - Cappadocia, Stephen of Ephesus, Basil of Seleucia. The entire group of Egyptian bishops was also absent, apparently on the orders of Dioscorus. Only the leaders were disavowed, and the faceless mass of bishops led by them were spared and left by the members of the cathedral. And although a part of it at the last meeting, following the leaders, changed seats from left to right, it was not deprived even now of either freedom or the opportunity to continue to zealously propagate the Monophysite theology, revering it as Kirillov. She seethed and fought for him now with legalized cries, now with the muffled resistance of her voices.
The chairmen of state, considering the atmosphere sufficiently prepared both by the experiences of the meeting on October 10 and the “cleansing” carried out, suggested that the council, on behalf of the emperor, move on to discussing the controversial dogmatic issue and adopting a new formulation of it that could agree and reassure everyone. The Roman legates were the first to oppose this. They simply could not understand: how and why, after listening to and accepting the tomos of Pope Leo, that is, after Roma locuta est, start repeating the backsides again? And then, as now, Rome did not understand the meaning of councils otherwise than as solemn additions to the already expressed papal voice. The legates had a direct instruction not to allow dogmatic discussions. In this case, the Greek majority of the council was also afraid of theological disputes, which undermined the hope of any peaceful result of the council. They were afraid of themselves, knowing the depth and sharpness of the emotions of piety that separated them, not to mention the theoretical conundrum, beyond the strength of many of them. The contemporary Roman Catholic historian G. Bardy qualifies both the proposal of the legates and the opinion of the "Easterners" that coincided with it as "wise" ("cet avis qui était sage"). The judgment of wisdom is controversial, subjective. Maybe it really was "bon pour l" Occident" (good for the West), but not for the East, where the measures of mechanically plugging the fountain of theologizing only led to a tightening of the disease. After Nicaea, a number of local and ecumenical councils somehow naively and unsuccessfully conjured not to draw up new formulas of faith, except for the single Nicene, supposedly sufficient for all cases.However, until the fever of the next dogmatic fever was overcome, the spells turned out to be powerless.So here, too, there was little "wisdom", i.e. more far-sighted, wiser was the desire of the government to obtain a new conciliatory formula from the council. the same result by sending through couriers the letter of the pope to Flavian, this famous tomos, and getting under it a formal majority of votes in the form of signatures? The two "unruly" councils at Ephesus, 431 and 449, proved unable to bear the formulas of the creeds. After bitter experience, it was now decided to "govern" the council (as there are now "managed democracies"), that is, to induce it to issue a definition of faith. The bishops referred to the formal prohibition by the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 to draw up any other creed other than the Nicene. The chairmen caught the members of the council on this. They suggested that they re-read the symbol and the well-known dogmatic documents of recent times, which supposedly fully explain it, in order to make sure that they do not contain answers to the questions that have arisen. And the members of the cathedral were glad simply for a delay and a delay. After the Nicene symbol, the Constantinople symbol was also read. Here, for the first time, on the stage of official history, our "Niceo-Tsaregrad symbol" appears before us, which by all indications was formed by the end of the Arian disputes and was already known to the members of the II Ecumenical Council (381), which cannot be established with accuracy, because the protocols of the I and II Ecumenical cathedrals do not exist. Now the following were also read: a) Cyril's letter to Nestorius ("Καταφλυαρουσιν"), b) to John of Antioch ("Εύφραινέσδωσαν"), c) Pope Leo's tomos and reference textual additions to it from 450, where, to satisfy the Greeks, the pope took quotes from Cyril, although he rightly rejected the malicious, Monophysite-sounding formula of his "μία φύσις". The most seductive and sharp letter of Cyril ("Του Σωτήρος") with 12 anathematisms, as if by mutual agreement, was covered with silence. St. Cyril, therefore, appeared in a cleaned up form to facilitate his reconciliation with Pope Leo. And Attik Nikopolsky, followed by his Illyrians and part of the Palestinians, found fault with the text of the tomos and demanded that 12 anathematisms be read. But the chairmen hushed it up, recognizing it as psychologically useful to give satisfaction to the doubters in the form of a private meeting under the leadership of Anatoly of Constantinople. A 5 day break was scheduled. At the same time, Anatoly was given a parallel task: to convince the doubters, to present to the council a draft conciliatory formula for determining the faith, that is, something that the council avoided in every possible way.
While this commission theological work was going on, on October 13, under the chairmanship of the legate Paskhazin (without secular chairmen), a meeting of a purely spiritual court over Dioscorus was appointed. The meeting itself took place in the chapel of the temple, in the so-called "Martyrion". Dioscorus did not want to appear for three formal challenges and was convicted in absentia for a series of acts of usurpation of power, violence, arbitrariness and insolence. The question of faith was not even raised. The resolution of the court, spewing Dioscorus from the dignity, was signed by the entire episcopate without exception. Unanimity was achieved by hushing up the dogmatic side of the matter. The resolution reads: “Therefore, the most holy and blessed Archbishop of the great and ancient rome Leo, through us and through this holy council, in union with the blessed Apostle Peter, who is the cornerstone of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the Orthodox faith, deprives Dioscorus of his episcopacy and all sacred dignity." the incomparable primacy of the Roman archbishop, based on the exclusive primacy of the Apostle Peter. At the same time, this is also evidence of the deep difference between the mentalities of Latinism and Hellenism themselves. Under the same words, Western and Eastern Christians did not so much mean as they felt different spiritual content. The Romans, drunk in with all your piety and church life, i.e. in practical ecclesiology, the mysticism of power and law, under these formulas they hatched in their hearts their future infallible papacy, and the "anarchic" Hellenes did not even suspect such mysticism, recognizing the simple positive fact of the traditional primacy, honor and authority of the Roman see . When from the IX century. disputes began on this topic and then the final division of the churches, the depth of a thousand-year-long misunderstanding was revealed. To Rome, the Greeks presented themselves as dishonest people who refused their signatures and obligations given by their forefathers not only at the IV, but also at all subsequent ecumenical councils, people who rationalistically (in a Protestant way) rejected the mystical faith of their ancestors. And the Greeks saw in the claims of Rome not the church teaching about the powers of the Apostle Peter, but a theocratic perversion or fall of the western model, when in the barbarian medieval Europe its educator and leader, the papal power, also became a political universal-imperial power over the entire universe, which the Greeks could not allow. They had a church anointed, theocratically legal, Christian, imperial power, with which the authority of the church was harmonized, harmonious, coordinated according to the theory of symphony. The authorities of Rome, however, equipped themselves with the theory of two swords, that is, they claimed to distribute powers to the Byzantine basileus, which was unbearable and insulting heresy for the Greeks. The purely ecclesiastical face of the Roman pontiff and his legitimate primacy of honor faded in the eyes of the Greeks, who also thought theocratically, but differently than the Latins. In self-defence against the perverted theocratic claims of the papacy, the Greeks pushed back from the papacy en bloc, ignoring its indisputable primacy. The Latins paid the East even more disdain. Thus arose and strengthened the psychology of the deplorable great schism of the church.
On October 17, the fourth session of the Council of Chalcedon was opened. The imperial chairmen put the development of a religious definition on the agenda. The general opposition to this task was immediately expressed through the lips of the church chairman, Bishop Paskhazin: “The rule of faith for a council is what is set forth by the fathers of the I, II and III Ecumenical Councils, as well as what was given by the venerable Leo, archbishop of all churches. This is faith which the council recognizes, to which it adheres, without subtracting or adding anything. Then the secular chairmen demanded an individual vote to make it clear: does everyone recognize that the faith of Cyril and Leo is one and the same? At the same time, apparently, supporters of the Cyrillo-Dioscorian direction expressed the wish that his collaborators in Ephesus 449, who were temporarily eliminated before the trial of Dioscorus and not affected by this court - Juvenal, Thalassius, Basil of Seleucia, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Viritis - were returned to the cathedral and took part in the voting. The secular chairmen decided to ask the opinion of the imperial court, which was on the other side of the Bosporus. The courier quickly brought the answer: the emperor relies on the wisdom of the cathedral. And the council gladly returned to its midst the above-named bishops, who fully signed the common resolution with all. The situation was different with 13 Egyptian bishops who did not go over to the right (Roman) side at the first meeting, that is, against Dioscorus. From that moment on, they remained outside the doors of the cathedral. In anticipation of the interrogation, they prepared their confession, in which they rejected various ancient heresies, but were silent about Eutychus. They were summoned, listened to and put a number of direct questions to them. They renounced Eutychus, although with difficulty. Pope Leo refused to express a judgment on the tomos, referring to their Alexandrian constitution (the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea), which supposedly forbade such actions in the absence of the Alexandrian leader. But the nerves of many of them could not stand it. They fell at the feet of the oldest bishops, asking for mercy on their gray heads, for for the signature of the tomos of the pope they are threatened with death in Egypt. These were not verbal hyperbole, this was the physical terror of Dioscorus. Then they were told that their vote was deferred until the election of a new patriarch to replace Dioscorus, but for the time being they could safely live in Constantinople.
After that, at the direction of the emperor, the cathedral had to interrogate a crowd of violent monastic leaders, including the brawler of 449, the Syrian abba Varsum (Bartzaum). Having failed to get any sense from these brawlers, who demanded the restoration of Dioscorus, dear to their hearts, the council, in the form of an unsubscribe from this hopeless case, left him to the post-conciliar administrative discretion of the Archbishop of Constantinople Anatoly.
The secular leaders of the cathedral saw that the bishops, tired of analyzing dramatic personal conflicts, were no longer able to calmly move on to dogmatic formulations, and they postponed this main task assigned to them by the court for a further meeting on October 22. To alleviate the pangs of the birth of a new creed, Archbishop Anatoly was entrusted with the duty in a private circle to prepare a formula for the meeting. This formula, which has not been fully preserved, as far as we know from the debate, reflected the tastes of the majority, that is, Cyril's Alexandrian terminology. With the exception of the Roman legates and some Antiochenes, almost all the bishops supported the essentially Monophysite formula μια φύσις...
The authority of St. Cyril, who himself was caught in it by trust in the walking texts of the Church Fathers, maliciously forged by the Apollinarians. But it took almost a century before Leontius of Byzantium exposed this successful forgery. And in the period described, the majority did not allow the expressions of Pope Leo and Flavian "two natures by combination" δυο φυσεις μετα την ενωσιν and offered the evasive and ambiguous "from two natures" εκ δυο φυσεων.
The secular chairmen cited as a reference the revealing fact that Dioscorus also used "from two natures" and accused Flavian of "two natures." To this, none other than Anatoly himself suddenly declared that Dioscorus was deposed not for faith (!!), but for insolence (excommunication of the pope and failure to appear at the cathedral court). The disciple and protege of Dioscorus, who himself easily adapted to the course of the capital, did not yet realize or did not want to recognize the truly heretical enthusiasm of Dioscorus. Such was the darkness in which even the leading personalities of the Greek episcopate were still wandering! In one eye (Cyrillo-Dioscorovsky) they were still blind. All their visual acuity was in the other eye. And they saw only one enemy for them - Nestorianism. And they still considered the cathedral an army that was supposed to defeat this only enemy they understood. At a meeting on October 22, after hearing the draft formula, anti-Nestorian cries were heard: "We must add to this definition the name of St. Mary, as the Mother of God, because Christ is God!" When John, Bishop of Germanicus, wished to emphasize the "two natures," it was said: "Down with the Nestorians!" "What then to do with the letter of the most holy Leo?" the screamers were asked. The sober majority argued that the proposed wording confirmed Leo's tomos: "Leo expresses Cyril's thoughts!" But the papal legates were dissatisfied with this. According to the Roman Catholic historian himself, "they would like to canonize the very words of Flavian" (i.e. tomos, G. Bardy, op. cit., p. 234).
Paskhazin declared: "If they do not accept the letters of the most blessed apostolic Pope Leo, then order us to return our mandates, we will return to Italy, and the council will meet there." Even Eusebius of Doryleia was embarrassed and offered to abandon the attempt to hold some kind of determination at the council.
The Council was clearly going through a crisis similar to the crises of the three previous ecumenical councils. And here, as then, the salutary role of state power's guardianship over him had an effect. The chairmen of state, after an urgent communication with the Court, put the council before an ultimatum: either the council votes the creed, or it is dissolved and transferred to the West. I had to calm down and lower my tone. But all the same, characteristic exclamations were heard: "Well! And we will disperse if our project is not liked! The Nestorians do not want it! Let the Nestorians go to their Rome!" And this was shouted out by the Illyrians, who administratively (together with their center - Thessalonica) belonged as a border exarchate to the Roman Patriarchate! But geography is one thing, and ethnography is another. They were Hellenes in language and theology, and spiritually they were alien to Latin Rome, and Rome to them.
The officials-chairmen tried to simplify the outcome of the meeting with a compressed vote: who is for Leo and who is for Dioscorus?
But it did not pass, and, in essence, it was inaccurate. First, Dioscorian theology - alas! - did not understand the council at the trial of him. Secondly, "either - or" was not at all in this contrast, but in the contrast of the theologies of Leo and Cyril. Cyril's 12 anathematisms are inconsistent with the tomos of the pope. But it was impossible to say it aloud at that moment, because all efforts were directed towards harmonizing the two inconsistent theology in form. Both persons, both Leo and Kirill, were Orthodox. But Cyril's theologizing carried a formal defectiveness that required cleaning, disinfection, and not the consensual swallowing of this infection by everyone. Volens-nolens had to again, in the sweat of his brow, try to formulate a definition of faith, why the council had so stubbornly evaded so far. The commission for the new project was made with the expectation of satisfying the disputing parties. On the Roman side, all three legates of the pope were enrolled in it; from the Greek side, bright figures were taken (Cyrillovians and even Dioscorians): Thalassius of Caesarea-Cappadocia, Eusebius of Ancyra, Atticus of Nikopol himself. The commission was secluded in a small chapel of St. Euphemia and shut the doors against the disturbing interference of other members of the cathedral. And, ο miracle! Yes, it is truly a miracle! It was this very commission - it could be called a commission of despair - unexpectedly quickly, after a break of several hours, compiled, wrote and adopted the wisest tactically, under the circumstances, the most perfect, philosophically and theologically most famous for all ages, Chalcedonian definition of faith! Its compilers based it on the Antioch Creed of 433, signed by St. Cyril (also under pressure from the royal court), the message of Cyril himself to Nestorius ("Καταφλυαρουσιν") and, of course, Leo's tomos. The compromise between the two theologians was the maximum. But, of course, a poisonous pea was thrown out of Cyril's tissue - μία φύσις. Lion's overwhelming victory was undeniable.
The culminating point of the conciliar efforts was the birth and approval of the above oros. And the culmination point within the most extensive oros is its negative adverbs: ασυγχυτως, ατρεπτως, αδιαιρετως, αχωριστως - uncontinuously, untransformed, inseparably, - inseparably excluding the access of heretical tendencies to it. The psychology and logic of heresies is characterized by a hypertrophy of rationalistic arrogance, which seduces both the inventor of the heresy and the disciples carried away by him with some new explanation of the mystery of revelation, which seems to be a simplification, but in fact leads to the abolition, destruction of the dogma. Like all dogmas, the dogma about the God-man is a mystery that exceeds our "arithmetical" reason. But this mystery is a God-revealed and God-given fact to us, that is, an immutable, irrevocable truth. This is truly c "est à prendre ou à laisser (recognize or reject). When our small mind - ratio, which does not comprehend either the secrets of world existence or the secrets of our own self, imagines that he somehow comprehended them, and then boldly breaks into the secret of dogma, breaks the boundaries of its crystalline outline - definitions, he creates barbaric violence against the secret, "goes crazy" and in crazy ecstasy shouts: "Eureka!" Thus, under the spell of a seducer, our forefathers fell into an illusory delight "even you understand." There is a prophetic delight from the Holy Spirit, and there is a false grace from the "spirit of flattery." One must have the gift of discerning spirits, are they from God? (1 Cor. 12:10). i.e., destroying) the mystery of the God-man, in "false grace" delight, he attributed to the text of his interpretations a most sincere self-outpouring: "Oh, new faith! Oh, divine mixing: God and flesh have made one nature!" In order not to slip into this alluring abyss of false reason and not to fly in seductive rapture on the wings of demons (Matt. 4:6), the Cathedral of Chalcedon placed in the Christological orosus seemingly simple partitions, a barrier ", protecting from falling into the abyss of heresies. The barrier is very thin, barely noticeable, lacy, consisting of only four negatives. But Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy has well trained the heads of the members of the commission epistemologically. They knew that only in this way is it given to a person to reason about the absolute and incomprehensible. And experience confirmed this seemingly unpretentious school directive.The commission wrote: 1) "Unstoppable" ("άσυγχύτως"), for the extreme Monophysites poured the water of the flesh into the fire of the deity, and it evaporated, disappeared, or, like grass, burned, and only the fiery element of divine nature remained, i. e. "one nature". 2) "Untransformed" ("άτρέπτως"), for for the more crafty, allegedly moderate Monophysites, humanity, transforming its being, lost its reality, became only an apparent shell. 3) "Inseparable" ("αδιαιρέτως"), and among the Nestorians two natures are placed side by side only in an illusory union. 4) "Inseparable" ("άχωρίστως"), while among the Marcellians, on the day of the last judgment, the God-Man will separate Himself from Himself, cast aside human nature that has served Him.
Speaking of this Orosa of the Fourth Council, we uttered the word "miracle." This is not for rhetoric. Every mere conscientious historian must feel this, delving into the complexity of the partisanship of the contending parties, the ambitions of religion and politics, and, finally, the differences of racial mindsets and languages. How did a bright stream of wise, reconciling doctrine suddenly flow from this bubbling cauldron, ready to explode and only increase chaos (there were recent examples of this - the Councils of Ephesus in 431 and 449)? How did the muddy water get cleared, according to the Serbian proverb, after passing "through twelve stones"? It was as if schoolchildren who had unscrewed were put in a punishment cell and forced to write an exercise that they had not completed. And God has blessed this coercion. It turned out to be good. "For it is pleasing to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28), as it is customary, following the example of the apostles, to repeat in such cases. Thus, in prose, the blindness of passions, the sins and infirmities of history, bright drops of truth suffer and implore, thus the Holy Spirit deigns to overshadow with revelation from above the conscientious quests of the human spirit. The more sober and accurate knowledge historical reality, the more wonderfully looms against the background of this prose, in contrast, a ray Divine Revelation. A miracle for the eyes of faith. For stupid and blind disbelief, miracles still do not happen.
Sessions on October 26, 27 and 28 were devoted to administrative, disciplinary and personal issues. Let's talk about them briefly. Bliss. Theodoret, already justified by Rome, was also looking for justification by his council. He was the brains of the Antioch school, which the conciliar majority regarded as mere Nestorianism. Theodoret wanted to justify before everyone the great theological work of his whole life, but they did not want to listen to him. Tired and spiritually crushed by what they had now decided on, the cathedral fathers, still poisoned by the poison of Monophysitism, saw Theodoret and shouted: "No reasoning is needed! Anathematize Nestorius, and that's enough!" Theodoret: "What is the use of this until I prove to you that I am Orthodox?" The crowd of bishops shouted: "You see, he is a Nestorian! Out here a heretic! Say clearly: the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God and anathema to Nestorius and anyone who does not call Mary the Mother of God and divides Christ into two sons!" Theodoret could prove that Nestorius also agreed to the name of the Theotokos and did not teach about the two sons. But in front of the impatient crowd it was impossible. Theodoret, in despair, trivially speaking, "waved his hand" and pronounced the required anathema. "Well, since he is Orthodox, he is worthy of the pulpit! Return him to the church!" This unwillingness of the episcopate to penetrate and understand orthodox form Antiochian theology made the bishops blind and ignorant before the temptations of their customary form of Alexandrian theology, almost unprotected from the infection of Monophysitism. And for this blindness, life took heavy revenge. 250 years of stubborn Monophysite reaction, combined with foreign nationalist reaction against Hellenism, weakened and belittled Byzantine church and still left traces and scars in her dogmatism, her piety and her creativity.
Theodoret was to be followed by his double in fate in the era of the dictatorship of Dioscorus, Yves of Edessa, to speak before the cathedral. He was interrogated about a sensational letter to Mara, Bishop of Ardashir, where St. Cyril was accused by him of Monophysitism. Willow's answer was undeniable. This was before 433, when Cyril yielded to the Antiochenes and signed a common conciliatory confession with them. But the members of the council again did not want to delve into the essence of Antiochian theology. They were only interested in the anathema to Nestorius, which, of course, Iva uttered. The impression remained that Theodoret and Iva were Nestorians. But, as always happens in a tense party atmosphere, the councillors did nothing to appease the suspicion of the Monophysite masses and their leaders. They decided: “You see, Nestorius (who was still alive) was anathematized to avert their eyes, and his old friends, Theodoret and Iva, were acquitted. Therefore, Nestorius won. Down with the Cathedral of Chalcedon and its head, Pope Leo!” This is the slogan of a long anti-Chalcedonian movement.
Even the high official spheres weakened themselves by the fact that they themselves were not free from the old "Dioscorian disease". A characteristic documentary imprint of this disease is a clerical forgery in the very text of the Oros of Chalcedon, as it was published in print from the most ancient and authoritative originals. In it we now read the "Dioscorian" insert "from two natures", instead of "in two natures". The self-evidence of the forgery, besides the essence of the matter, is documented by the fact that, without exception, all the ancient patristic citations of oros, as one should expect, contain "in two natures."
Fourth Ecumenical Council
The fourth ecumenical council - Chalcedon is directly connected with the history of the third ecumenical council - Ephesus (writes Bishop John of Aksay). We know that the main figure in the enlightenment and preservation of the Orthodox teaching at the 3rd Ecumenical Council was St. Cyril, archbishop Alexandrian. The main culprit of all the worries was Eutyches, Archim. Constantinople, who was an admirer of St. Kirill. Saint Cyril, respecting Eutyches, sent him a copy of the Acts of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. But just as it happens in other cases that inspiration goes to extremes, so here, too, zeal for the theological judgments of St. Cyril crossed the line. The high theology of St. Cyril was not understood and Eutychius degenerated into a false teaching, a new system of monophysitism was built, in which it was stated that in Jesus Christ there were not two natures, but one. When it came to explanations with Eutyches at the council, he expressed his teaching as follows: “After the incarnation of God the Word, I worship one nature, the nature of God, incarnate and incarnate; I confess that our Lord consists of two natures before the union, and after the union I confess one nature” (History of ecumenical councils).
heretical monophysite shared the doctrine Dioscorus who, after Cyril, occupied the See of Alexandria. Dioscorus was supported by Emperor Theodosius II, who valued him as a fighter against Nestorianism. Eutychius was venerated by the court party, headed by Empress Eudoxia. On the advice of this party, Eutyches transferred his case to the court of the churches of Rome and Alexandria, presenting himself as the defender of the Orthodox teaching, and Flavian and Eusebius, Bishop. Dorilean by the Nestorians. Pope Leo the Great, aware of everything Flavian, agreed to the condemnation of Eutychius. Dioscorus, taking the side of the latter, asked the emperor to convene an ecumenical council to approve the pseudo-Orthodox teaching of Eutychius and condemn Nestorianism, allegedly revived by Flavian. Theodosius II appointed a council in Ephesus in 449, presided over by Dioscorus.
The council was attended by 127 bishops in person and 8 had commissioners. The Pope sent a "dogmatic epistle", famous for its purity of understanding of the truth and for its clarity of presentation (epistola dogmatica). Three of his legates were in session. Council meetings on the case of Eutychius began. Dioscorus did not read out the message of the pope, contented himself with confessing the faith of Eutychius and declaring that the two natures in Christ were not spoken of at the previous ecumenical councils. Dioscorus declared Flavian a heretic and defrocked, as did Eusebius of Doryleus, Domnus of Antioch, and Theodore of Cyrus. With them, for fear of violence, 114 bishops agreed. The legates of Rome refused to vote.
“When Flavian was leaving the cathedral hall,” writes Bishop. Arseny, “the Syrian archimandrite Varsum and other monks attacked him, and beat him so much that he soon died on the way to the town of Lydia, the place of his imprisonment.”
Flavian's successor was Anatoly, a priest, confidant of Dioscorus under the imp. Yard. The emperor, deceived by his courtiers, confirmed all the definitions of the Ephesian “robber council”.
Pope of Rome defends Orthodoxy St. Leo the Great. At the council in Rome, everything that was decided in Ephesus was condemned. The pope, in letters to the east, demanded the convening of a legal ecumenical council in Italy. At his request, the same demanded and app. Emperor Valentinian III. But Theodosius was under the influence of the Monophysite court party, especially Theodosius, and therefore did not heed the requests. Then, the court party lost its significance, the empress was removed under the pretext of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The party of the sister Theodosius, Pulcheria, an admirer of Patriarch Flavian, gained importance. His relics were solemnly transferred to Constantinople. Theodosius died soon after (450). He was succeeded by Marcian, who married Pulcheria.
AT Chalcedon legal 4th Ecumenical Council. All the fathers on it were 630. Of the most remarkable were: Anatoly of Constantinople, who took the side of the Orthodox, Domnus of Antioch (deposed by Dioscorus and returned by Marcian), Maximus, put in his place, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea-Cappadocia, Blessed Theodoret, Eusebius of Dorileus, Dioscorus of Alexandria and others. The pope, who desired a council in Italy, nevertheless sent his legates to Chalcedon. Anatoly of Constantinople was the chairman of the council. First of all, the fathers took up the consideration of deeds robbery council and the trial of Dioscorus. His accuser was the famous Eusebius of Dorileus, who presented the fathers with a note outlining all the violence of Dioscorus at the robber cathedral. Having familiarized themselves, the fathers took away the right to vote from Dioscorus, after which he was among the defendants. In addition, many accusations were presented against him by the Egyptian bishops, who spoke about the immorality and cruelty of Dioscorus and his various kinds of violence. After discussing all this, the fathers condemned him and deposed him, just as they condemned the robber council and Eutyches. Those bishops who took part in the robber council were forgiven by the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, because they repented and explained in their defense that they acted under fear of the threats of Dioscorus.
Then the fathers began to define the doctrine. They were to present such a doctrine of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, which would be alien to the extremes of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The teaching between these extremes was precisely Orthodox. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon did just that. Taking as a model the statement of faith of St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, as well as the message of Pope Leo of Rome to Flavian, they thus defined the dogma about the image of the union in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ of two natures: “following the divine fathers, we all unanimously teach to confess ..... one and that but Christ, the Son, the only-begotten Lord, in two natures, inseparable, unchanging, indivisible, inseparable cognizable (not by the difference of two natures consumed by the union, but rather by the property of each nature being preserved into one person and copulated into one hypostasis): not into two persons cut or divided, but one and the same Son and the only-begotten God the Word. This definition of faith condemned both Nestorianism and Monophysitism. All fathers agreed with this definition. Blessed Theodoret, who was suspected of Nestorianism at the council, especially by the Egyptian bishops, pronounced an anathema on Nestorius and signed his condemnation. Therefore, the Council removed from him the condemnation of Dioscorus and restored him to the dignity, as well as removed the condemnation from Willows, Bishop of Edessa. Only the Egyptian bishops were ambiguous about creeds. Although they signed the condemnation of Eutyches, they did not want to sign the letters of Leo of Rome to Flavian, on the pretext that, according to the custom existing in Egypt, they do nothing important, without the permission and determination of their archbishop, who, in connection with the deposition of Dioscorus, they didn't have. The council obliged them to sign with an oath when an archbishop was installed. - When Marcian was informed that everything was done, he himself arrived at the cathedral for the 6th meeting, delivered a speech in which he expressed his joy that everything was done according to the general desire and peacefully. However, the meetings of the council were not over yet. The fathers were busy compiling 30 rules. The main subjects of the rules are church administration and church deanery.
After the council, the emperor issued strict laws regarding the Monophysites. Everyone was ordered to accept the doctrine determined by the Council of Chalcedon; monophysites to exile or exile; burn their writings, and execute them for their distribution, etc. Dioscorus and Eutyches were exiled to distant provinces.”
The Council of Chalcedon approved the decisions not only of the three previous Ecumenical Councils, but also of the local ones: Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch and Laodicea, which were in the 4th century. From that time on, the leading bishops in the main five church districts began to be called patriarchs, and the most distinguished metropolitans, deprived of certain rights of independence, were given the title of exarch as an honorary distinction: for example, Ephesus, Caesarea, Heraclius.
Bishop Arseniy, noting this, adds: “The name has been used before; so imp. Theodosius, in a letter of 449, called the Bishop of Rome Patriarch. At the 2nd meeting of Chalcedon. Sobor, the imperial representatives said: "Let the most holy patriarchs of each district choose two from the district for discourse on faith." From this we see that this name has already come into official use. As for the name “pope”, in Egypt and Carthage the common people called the leading bishops so, and the rest were “fathers”, and these “grandfathers” (popes). From Africa, this name passed to Rome.
Monophysite heresy after the council.The Monophysite heresy brought more evil to the Church than any other heresy. The conciliar condemnation could not destroy her. The Monophysites, especially the Egyptians, did not like the doctrine of two natures in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the main thing about the human. Many monks in other churches were also opposed to this teaching and went over to the ranks of the Monophysites. It seemed impossible for them to ascribe to the Lord Jesus Christ a human nature similar to our sinful one, against the shortcomings of which all their exploits were directed. Even during the Council of Chalcedon, the monastics sent three archimandrites who undertook to defend the Monophysite doctrine and asked for the restoration of Dioscorus. After the council, some of the monks went straight from Chalcedon to Palestine and caused great confusion there with stories that the Chalcedon council restored Nestorianism. Ten thousand Palestinian monks, led by people from Chalcedon, attacked Jerusalem, plundered it, drove out Patriarch Juvenal, and put their Theodosius in his place. Only two years later (453), with the help of military force, Juvenal again took the throne of Jerusalem. The Monophysites staged similar disturbances in Alexandria. Here, military force did not lead to anything. The mob drove the warriors into the former temple of Serapis and burned them alive along with the temple. Strengthened military measures led to the final separation of the Monophysites from the Orthodox Patriarch Proterius, who was put in the place of Dioscorus, and the creation of a separate society under the leadership of Presbyter Timothy Elur.
Taking advantage of the death of the emperor Marcian (457), the Monophysites of Alexandria staged a riot, during which Proterius was killed, and Elur was erected in his place, who deposed all the bishops of the Council of Chalcedon, and condemned the patriarchs: Constantinople, Antioch and Rome. Marcian's successor, Leo 1 Thracian (457-474) could not immediately suppress the uprising in Alexandria. To restore peace in the Church, he decided on a special measure: he demanded that all the metropolitans of the empire give him their opinion about the Council of Chalcedon and whether Elur should be recognized as the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria. More than 1,600 metropolitans and bishops spoke out in favor of the Council of Chalcedon and against Timothy Elur.
Then Leo deposed Elur (460) and appointed the Orthodox Timothy Salafakiol as Patriarch of Alexandria. The piety and meekness of this patriarch won him the love and respect of the Monophysites, and the Alexandrian church was calm for some time. Patriarch Peter Gnafevs of Antioch was also deposed (470). While still a monk, he formed a strong Monophysite party in Antioch, forced the Orthodox patriarch to leave the chair, and took it himself. In order to establish forever Monophysitism in Antioch, he, in the thrice-sacred song after the words: holy immortal - made a Monophysite addition - crucified for us.
But now, in 476, the imperial throne was occupied by Basilisk, who took it from Leo Zeno. In order to strengthen himself on the throne with the help of the Monophysites, Basilisk took their side. He issued a roundabout letter in which, condemning the Council of Chalcedon and the letter of Leo to Flavian, he ordered to adhere only to the Nicene symbol and the definitions of the second and third ecumenical councils, confirming this symbol. Such a message was to be signed by all the bishops of the empire, and indeed many signed it, some out of conviction, others out of fear. At the same time, Timothy Elur and Peter Gnafevs were restored to their chairs, and the Orthodox patriarchs - Alexandria and Antioch - were removed. The restoration of Monophysitism created great excitement among the Orthodox, especially in Constantinople. Here, Patriarch Akakiy was at the head of the Orthodox. The basilisk, wishing to prevent unrest that threatened even his throne, issued another circular letter, canceling the first, but it was too late. Zeno, with the help of the Orthodox, especially Akakios, defeated Basilisk and took the imperial throne (477). Now the Orthodox have again gained the upper hand over the Monophysites. After the death of Elur, Timothy Salafakiol again took the chair. But Zeno wanted not only the victory of the Orthodox, but also the accession of the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church. He understood that religious divisions had a bad effect on the well-being of the state. Patriarch Akakiy also sympathized with him in this. But these attempts to join the Monophysites, begun by Zeno and continued into the next reign, only led to unrest in the Church, and, finally, were resolved by a new heresy.
In 484, the Patriarch of Alexandria Timothy Salafakiol died. In his place, the Orthodox chose John Talaia, and the Monophysites Peter Mong, who began to work diligently in Constantinople for his approval, and, among other things, proposed a plan for the annexation of the Monophysites. Zenon and Patriarch Akaki agreed to his plan. And so, in 482, Zeno issues a conciliatory creed, on the basis of which communion between the Orthodox and the Monophysites was to be established. It approved the Nicene symbol (confirmed by the second Ecumenical Council), anathematized Nestorius and Eutychius with like-minded people, accepted 12 anathematisms of St. Cyril, it was stated that the only-begotten Son of God, descended and incarnated from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin Theotokos, is one, and not two: one in miracles and in sufferings that he voluntarily endured in the flesh; finally, anathema was pronounced against those who thought or are now thinking of anything other than what was approved at the Council of Chalcedon or another. Zeno wanted to achieve a connection by silence about the natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and an ambiguous expression about the Council of Chalcedon. Such a conciliatory confession was adopted by Patriarch Akakiy, Peter Mong, who received the Alexandrian see for this, and Peter Gnafevs, who again took the see of Antioch. But at the same time this conciliatory confession did not satisfy either the strict Orthodox or the strict Monophysites. The Orthodox suspected in him the recognition of Monophysitism, and they demanded an explicit condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon. John Talaia, not approved by the emperor at the Alexandrian see, went to Rome with complaints to Pope Felix II about Akakios, who had taken the enoticon. Felix, feeling completely independent of Constantinople after the fall of the Western Empire (476), condemned the enoticon as a heretical creed, excommunicated Akakios and all the bishops who accepted the enoticon, as well as Zeno himself, and even broke off communion with the Eastern churches. Strict Monophysites, for their part, rebelled against their patriarchs Gnafevs and Mong, for the adoption of the enotikon, separated from them and formed a separate Monophysite society akephalites(headless).
Under Zeno's successor Anastasia (491-518), things were in the same position. Anastasius demanded that everyone take the enotikon. But the Orthodox have already managed to understand that condescending measures in relation to heretics do not bring good consequences and even damage Orthodoxy, so they began to abandon the enoticon. Anastasius began to pursue them, and, apparently, had already gone over to the side of the Monophysites. Meanwhile, ardent champions of Monophysitism appeared among the Akefalites - Xenay (Philoxenus), Bishop of Hierapolis in Syria, and Severus, Patriarch of Antioch. Severus, for the success of Monophysitism in Constantinople, suggested that Anastasius add an addition to the trisagion song: crucify for us. Patriarch Macedonian of Constantinople, fearing exile, was forced to obey the order of the emperor. But the people, having learned about this, staged a riot in Constantinople. Although Anastasius managed to temporarily reassure the people and even exile the Patriarch of Macedon into prison, nevertheless, an open war soon began between the Orthodox and the tsar. The leader of the Orthodox Vitalian, with his victories, forced Anastasius to promise to convene a council to confirm the sanctity of the Chalcedon Cathedral and restore communion with Rome. Anastasius died soon after (518), having failed to fulfill his promises.
Under his successor Justin (518-27), the patron saint of Orthodoxy, it again gained the upper hand. Relations with the Roman Church were renewed (519) under the new Patriarch John of Cappadocia; the importance of the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed, the Monophysite bishops were deposed, and so on.
