Yes, it was ambiguous. Even as they were condemning Nestorius, they were accepting Ibas' letter as Orthodox.
^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted."the most devout bishops exclaimed 'He is a heretic! He is a Nestorian! Drive out the heretic!" until Theodoret said "anathema to Nestorius and to whoever does not say that the Holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos..."
yeah, that is ambiguous as to what Christology is being attributed to Pope St. Cyril. Not.
Yes, so you keep saying. But the Fathers of Chalcedon did not. Of the 370-600 bishops (there is dispute as to how many, but Chalcedon was easily by far the most attended Council. See Gaddis and Price's appendix), judging from the attendence lists of the Nineth Session (of which the Tenth, the one that you are refering to, was the continuence to allow for an investigation (which, however, didn't happen)) and Elventh Session, only 57 bishops attended, a session which Ibas insisted on, on the basis of the vacature of Epheus II. Of those, only 18 signed the restoration of Ibas, of which 10 had condemned him at Ephesus II under Pope Dioscoros. Of these, only three (four, if you include the Latin priest Boniface) said anything about a letter. Luccentius (and the priest Boniface) spoke through Paschasinus in Latin, none of them understanding Greek (they signed the various Acts, in Latin, to "what was read out in Greek at the Council"). Julian of Cos, the only Greek speaker among the Roman legates and the one entrusted with translating the Acts into Latin (which he never succeeded in doing, and years after the Council Pope St. Leo complained to Julian that he (Leo) still knew very little of what happened at Chalcedon, which delayed the official reception of Rome of the decrees. A century later, Pope Vigilius still had no Latin Acts nor Latin translation of the Letter to Maris attributed to Ibas, and couldn't judge its contents for himself. Most of the Latin West were even more steeped in ignorance to its contents, and the actual judgements of Chalcedon.
Julian of Cos, the only Greek speaking legate of Rome, objected to the reading of the proceedings of Ephesus II against Ibas, joining the other legates in speaking through Paschasinus, but was noticibly absent when Paschasinus said "we know from the verdict of the most devout bishops [at Tyre, where the Letter of Maris was NOT read] that that most devout Ibas has been proven innocent, and from the reading of his letter we have found him to be Orthodox." Ibas', however had requested that the bishop "order that the letter from the clergy of Edess be read, so that you may learn that I am a stranger to the charges brought against me and have suffered violence," which was done: said letter denying that he had uttered heretical and blasphemous things.
The only other bishop to say anything was Patriarch Maximus of Antioch, a creature of Pope Dioscoros and his council of Ephesus, which deposed Patriarch Domnus and put Maximus in his place: it was Pope Dioscoros' own idea, which he had the Emperor put in force, to put a cleric from Constantinople on the throne of Antioch, rather than let the Antiochians chose someone (something uncanonical IIRC). He said "From what has been read it has become clear that the most devout Ibas is guiltless of everything charged against him; and from the reading of the transcript of the letter produced by his adversary his writing has been seen to be Orthodox." The transcript
they produced, however, shows Ibas denying the charges of him anathematizing Pope St. Cyril etc.
to be technically correct "the Letter attributed to Ibas" if you are refering to the heretical one, and not the one he produced from the clergy of Edessa: we have those claiming that he admitted to it, but no admission from him, that he wrote it.
as you know, praised Theodore of Mopsuestia as a doctor of the Church and said that St. Cyril eventually changed his Christology to that of Theodore.
In other threads, you have characterized the acceptance of Ibas' letter as a peripheral matter that was not central to the council.
No, I characterize the reinstatement of Ibas as a peripheral matter, one that the Fathers at Chalcedon were reluctant to do and had to be brought to it kicking and screaming. I have denied that there is any such acceptance of the Letter attributed to Ibas at the Council.
However, not everyone viewed it that way. A century later, Justinian had a horrible time trying to get his Chalcedonian bishops to condemn Ibas' letter. They would not condemn it willingly because they thought doing so would undermine Chalcedon. Also, there were Chalcedonian bishops who would not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, not only because he was already dead, but because Ibas' letter praised him and they thought the letter was that authoritative.
Even Facundus, who most went on a limb to defend the Three Chapters, included in his defense the allegation that one could not condemn those who died in peace with the Church, and the presumption that condemning the writings of Theodoret and Ibas, as opposed to their persons, reinstated at Chalcedon, entailed repudiation of Chalcedon.
Pope St. Cyril did not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia at Ephesus, when he could have. Nor did Pope Dioscoros condemn Thedore of Mopsuestia at Ephesus, when he could have. Given that, I don't think that there is much to the criticism that Chalcedon did not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia.
I don't want to start a polemical debate about this in the public forum. I am just bringing all this up because I think there is a strong argument to be made that Chalcedon was ambiguous. The fact that it has been given so many interpretations by so many people over the centuries is evidence of that. The Assyrians, for example, state in their catechism that Chalcedon upholds their Christology. Of course the EO's would vehemently disagree with that. Everyone sees it their own way.
Given the many interpretations by contemporaries including its participants, the same argument for ambiguity can be made for the Ecumenical Council of Nicea I.
The important thing, of course, is that Constantiple II eliminated any ambiguity, and the Chalcedonian Churches now hold a Christology that the OO's can agree with and call Orthodox.
Amen! But even Price and Gaddis admit, while claiming that "The condemnations of 553 are hard to reconcile with the proceedings in the eight [Theodoret] and tenth [Ibas] sessions of Chalcedon," that "they served to secure what the Fathers of 451 had intended when they approved the Definition."
Going back to the OP, I recall a German Protestant theologian coming on our website a while back. He wrote something that seemed to support the idea that there are those in the West who view Chalcedon as quasi-Nestorian. I don't know if that would reflect the feelings of our Catholic members here. Probably not.
That would be odd, as the Protestants are quasi-Nestorian, and the Nestorian Catholicos was wont to say that the Nestorians were Protestants and all Protestants were Nestorians.