Topic: Does Chalcedon Contradict Ephesus?

[holdencaulfield]

I was wondering if the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon contradicted the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus? It seems like they do, am I wrong?

"If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema. " (Council of Ephesus)

"that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood" (Council of Chalcedon)

[Salpy]

It depends on who you ask.  If you ask an OO, he'll say yes.  If you ask an EO, he'll say no.  I think both sides, however, would agree that Chalcedon read together with Constantinople II can be seen as being consistent with Ephesus.

[holdencaulfield]

It depends on who you ask.  If you ask an OO, he'll say yes.  If you ask an EO, he'll say no.  I think both sides, however, would agree that Chalcedon read together with Constantinople II can be seen as being consistent with Ephesus.

Could you explain to me how. I know that you are OO, but I was looking for an EO perspective on this as I already know the OO one.

[buzuxi]

The council of Ephesus basically used the Christology of the School of Alexandria against Nestorius, a person who held to an extremist interpretation of the theology of the school of Antioch. Since the Antiochan school emphasized the humanity of Christ, Nestorius went to the extreme and denied the title of Theotokos for the Virgin Mary (and thus claimed 2 hypostasis for Christ). At the Council of Ephesus, the Antiochan delegation arrived late and were angered that St Cyril started the council and its condemnation of Nestorius, one of their fellow kinsman.

Ephesus didnt become truly ecumenical until 2 years later when Patriarch John of Antioch and St. Cyril of Alexandria reconciled in the "formula of reunion". Basically both sides accepted each others Christology, Cyril accepted the Antiochan Tradition concerning the Two natures and John of Antioch accepted the condemnation of Nestorius and fully recieved the dogma of the 'Theotokos'.


In Chalcedon, it was time for the Christology of the Antiochan School to step up and condemn the teaching of Eutyches,   which was an extremist interpretation of the Christology of the Alexandrian School ,which emphasized the divinity of Christ. Eutyches basically fell into heresy because of his zeal to persecute the last remaining Nestorians of Constantinople. Thus he created a heretical extremist Christology of monophysitism to counter anything the Nestorians produced.

While Pope Leo's tome taught the two natures, the definition of Chalcedon is not based entirely on it. Its basically Antiochan Christology.

[Salpy]

Actually, I don't even think that Eutyches was formally condemned at Chalcedon, although I could be wrong.  I just seem to recall that from one of the other billion threads on this subject. 

From what I understand, Chalcedon was convened because Pope Dioscoros at Ephesus II did not accept the Tome of Leo and instead condemned Theodoret and Ibas and certain writings of theirs (which would later make up the Three Chapters condemned by the EO's at Constantinople II.)  Pope Leo wanted his tome accepted and Ibas and Theodoret exonerated.  This is what happened at Chalcedon.  The writings that were condemned at Ephesus II and later at Constantinople II were also read into the record at Chalcedon.

The biggest condemnation to come out of Chalcedon was the condemnation of Pope Dioscorus.  He wasn't condemned for heresy, though.  They couldn't get him for that, so they condemned him for not showing up to one of the sessions.

I can't believe I've been sucked into discussing this stuff again. 

Holdencaulfield,

You've been told to read at least some of the many already existing threads discussing all of this.  Please do so.

[PeterTheAleut]

holdencaulfield,

To encourage you to continue the research you seem to have already started--thanks for starting this, BTW--before you start any new threads to ask us about Chalcedon, I am locking this thread for the weekend.  Please use the next couple of days to continue your reading and engaging us with posts on old threads.  (It's okay to resurrect dead threads if you want; in fact, I would rather you did.)  If I see that you have used this weekend wisely to your benefit, I will consider reopening this thread next Monday.  Thank you in advance for your continued cooperation.

- PeterTheAleut

[PeterTheAleut]

Thread unlocked.  Sorry I dropped the ball and didn't get around to doing this earlier this week as I promised.

[holdencaulfield]

Thread unlocked.  Sorry I dropped the ball and didn't get around to doing this earlier this week as I promised.

No that's no problem. I am pretty much over my problems with this anyways. Those two things still seem a little contradictory, but I feel like I can accept Chalcedon now.

[Symeon]

I was wondering if the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon contradicted the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus? It seems like they do, am I wrong?

No contradiction, Chalcedon does not divide the Gospel descriptions between two persons or hypostases. It distinguishes the attributes, but predicates them of one person and one hypostasis.

[holdencaulfield]

No contradiction, Chalcedon does not divide the Gospel descriptions between two persons or hypostases. It distinguishes the attributes, but predicates them of one person and one hypostasis.

Yes, I know, besides it would be incorrect to say that the Divine nature was consubstantial with our humanity, however could we not say that the Incarnate Logos is consubstantial with our humanity?

Does Ephesus use physis as synonomous with prosopon and hypostasis? Or does it make a difference like in Chalcedon. Because otherwise I could see the rejection.

[minasoliman]

Yes, I know, besides it would be incorrect to say that the Divine nature was consubstantial with our humanity, however could we not say that the Incarnate Logos is consubstantial with our humanity?

Does Ephesus use physis as synonomous with prosopon and hypostasis? Or does it make a difference like in Chalcedon. Because otherwise I could see the rejection.

http://www.monachos.net/library/Cyril_of_Alexandria,_Third_Epistle_to_Nestorius,_with_'Twelve_Anathemas'

Have a look at anathemas 2, 3, and 4 and you will see that he sorta uses nature and hypostasis synonymously.  Anathema 4 simply states never to distribute attributes in two separate entities, which is something that also was taken into account when non-Chalcedonians were interpreting the Tome in Chalcedon.

God bless.

[holdencaulfield]

which is something that also was taken into account when non-Chalcedonians were interpreting the Tome in Chalcedon.

None of the Anathemas contradict Chalcedon from what I can see. However #4 does seem to contradict Leo's Tome, however that may or may not be an issue. I will probably look at it tonight and see what I can see.

[buzuxi]

The third and fourth councils must be taken together. The fifth council was an attempt to reconciliate with the non-chalcedonian party. Both the third and fourth council attest to the Tradition of the universal Church each combatting a particular heresy in time, one Nestorian the other Monophysitism.

[holdencaulfield]

The third and fourth councils must be taken together. The fifth council was an attempt to reconciliate with the non-chalcedonian party. Both the third and fourth council attest to the Tradition of the universal Church each combatting a particular heresy in time, one Nestorian the other Monophysitism.

Good point. Another thing that I have been thinking about is the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church takes all Church Fathers into consideration when teaching doctrine. The Church has never taken everything that St. Augustine of Hippo to be correct, yet much of it is, the same for St. Cyril of Alexandria. However what about St. Leo's Tomes contradictions with Anathema #4?