Volume||06||Issue||07||July-2018||Pages-8003-8013||ISSN(e):2321-7545 Website: http://jsae.in Index Copernicus Value- 76.10 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18535/ijsre/v6i7.04 Council of Chalcedon and its Consequences Author Fr. Dr.Thomson Robi Dept of History, Baselius College, Kottayam ABSTRACT The Council of Chalcedon was an important epoch making event in the history of Christianity because it changed the flow of history. This council formed the fundamental principles of Christology. In the first Quarter of the 5th century a new Christological controversy originated in the church. In this circumstances the Fourth Ecumenical Council i.e. Council of Chalcedon held in 451, from 8 October until 1 November at Chalcedon, a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Its principal purpose was to assert the Orthodox Catholic doctrine against the heresy of Eutyches and the Monophysites, although ecclesiastical discipline and jurisdiction also occupied the council's attention. Council of Chalcedon made a lasting contribution to the faith of the church. This council divided the church in to two: Eastern and Western or the non- Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians. This was an important event in the history of the development of Christian church. The Council of Chalcedon with its dogmatic definition did not put an end to the controversy concerning the natures of Christ and their relation to each other. Therefore this council was an important episode in the history of Christianity. INTRODUCTION The Christian Church began on foundation of a faith catered in the person of Jesus Christ. In clarifying the nature of the faith several centuries were rejected by the church. Through the Council of Nicea (325), Council of Constantinople (381) and Council of Ephesus (431) the church accepted officially the affirmation that the son who became incarnate in Jesus Christ was eternally and fully God in the same way as the Father or the Holy Spirit, is God eternally and fully, without contradicting the emphasis on divine unity. In the first Quarter of the 5th century a new Christological controversy originated in the church. The Fourth Ecumenical Council i.e. Council of Chalcedon held in 451, from 8 October until 1 November at Chalcedon, a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Its principal purpose was to assert the Orthodox Catholic doctrine against the heresy of Eutyches and the Monophysites, although ecclesiastical discipline and jurisdiction also occupied the council's attention. It repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism, and set forth the Chalcedonian Creed, which declared that “Jesus Christ is one Person in two natures without confusion, change, or severance” and clearly defined the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Council of Chalcedon made a lasting contribution to the faith of the church. In this paper the presenter would like to deal with the Council of Chalcedon and its Consequences on history. 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Traditionally, it had been held that Nestorius who presided over the see of Constantinople from 428 to 431 was a heretic as he had taught the foul doctrine about Jesus Christ and that on this ground he was condemned by the council of Ephesus in 431.The fact that the Antiochenes were not in full agreement with Fr. Dr.Thomson Robi, IJSRE Volume 06 Issue 07 July 2018 Page 8003 its decisions. Though this problem was externally solved by the reunion between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch in 433, the reunion itself was being taken in different ways by the Alexandrine and the Antiochene sides. In that situation the Synod of Constantinople in 448 condemned Eutyches as a heretic exclusively on the ground of the Antiochean interpretation of the union. Now the Council of 449 expressed the Alexandrian reaction.1 All these controversies are on the basis of Christological interpretation between Antiochean and Alexandrian schools. In the early 440‟s a new generation took over. John died 441or 42 Leo I became bishop of Rome (440- 61), justly called „the Great‟, who elevated the papacy both in theory and in practice to something like that awesome eminence which it has since enjoyed.2 The death of Cyril in 444 brought a new faction to power in Alexandria; the ruthless Dioscorus succeeded Cyril in 444, a man of fully as zealous as himself for the prestige and theology of his see and who went beyond Cyril in emphasising the divine nature in Christ; Flavian was made Patriarch of Constantinople in 446. Of the earlier protagonists only Theodoret of Cyrrhus survived. Since Nestorius so fully divided the Divine and the Human in Christ that he taught a double personality or a twofold being in Christ, it became incumbent on his opponents to emphasize the unity in Christ and to exhibit the God-man, not as two beings but as one. In 446 Flavian, whose sympathies seem to have been with Antioch, conflict soon arose over a monk of Constantinople, Eutyches. „Eutyches (c.378-454) was abbot of an important monastery just outside Constantinople during the reign of Theodosius II. He was himself a highly influential person in the life, not of the capital only but of all the Eastern Empire. By reason of his great age, and the repute of his ascetic life, a kind of patriarch of the world of monks, while at the court the all powerful official of the moment was his godson, the eunuch Chrysaphius‟.3 He denounced as Nestorian the creed of 433 in which John of Antioch and Cyril had reached agreement and declared that before the union (the incarnation) there were the two natures, divine and human. But after that the union the two so blended that there was only one only one nature and that was fully divine.4 Eutyches provocatively attacked the doctrine of two natures after the union. In almost „single-nature‟ (Monophysite) terms he suggested that Christ‟s humanity was completely absorbed by his divinity like a drop of wine in the sea. After the Incarnation, they said, no distinction could be made in Christ between the divine and the human. (Godhood and manhood were so united in Christ that after the union the manhood became absorbed in the Godhood).5 Extreme opposition to Nestorianism exposed the heresy of Eutychianism. Eutyches expressed the peculiar form of Apollinarianism.6 The error of Eutyches was first detected by Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch, Theodoret‟s supervisor, appealed to the emperor to suppress the new heresy. In this new offensive Eutyches found a powerful ally in the new Bishop of Alexandria. A formal accusation was preferred against the Eutyches by Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum7 (Phrygia), at a synod of Constantinople in November 448, presided by Flavian. This synod declared it a matter of faith that after the Incarnation, Christ consisted of two natures (united) in one hypostasis or person; hence there was one Christ, one Son, and one Lord. Eutyches was deposed, excommunicated as a reviler of Christ, and was deposed from every priestly office.8 He protested, and appealed for redress to Pope Leo I (440-61), to other distinguished bishops, and also to Theodosius II. Bishop Flavian of Constantinople informed Pope Leo I and other bishops of what had 1V.C.Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined (Delhi, ISPCK, 2001), p.xix. 2 Stuart G Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (Michigan, William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p.223. 3 Philip Hughes, A History of the Church (Westminster, Sheed and Ward, 1989), p.250 4K.S.Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York, Harper& Brothers, 1953), p.170 5Tim Dowley, The History of Christianity (Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), p.173. 6Philip Hughes, A History of the Church, p.250. 7V.C.Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined, pp.16-18 8 K.S.Latourette, A History of Christianity, p. 170 Fr. Dr.Thomson Robi, IJSRE Volume 06 Issue 07 July 2018 Page 8004 occurred in his city. Eutyches won the sympathy of the emperor; through the monk's representations and those of Dioscurus, Patriarch of Alexandria, the emperor was induced to invoke a new council, to be held at Ephesus. Pope Leo I, Dioscurus, and a number of bishops and monks were invited to attend and investigate anew the orthodoxy of Eutyches. Leo supported Flavian and send him a long letter, known as the Tome and the pope was unable to go, but sent three delegates as his representatives. In this Tome of Leo, 9he explains the mystery of the Incarnation with special reference to the questions raised by Eutyches. 1.1 The Toe of Leo (Pope Leo’s letter to Flavian): Leo took his time to appreciate the situation. Only when summoned to the council at Ephesus did he finally write. His letter to Flavian is generally known as The Tome of Leo; „tome‟ (Greek tomos) merely means „book‟ or in this case „booklet‟. It is in characteristically prose and confident judgement. It condemns Eutyches in uncompromising terms. Leo has perused the record of Eutyches‟ trial, he write and judges him „very rash and extremely ill- informed. Leo then goes on to quote what is plainly the old Roman version of the creed (related to the so-called Apostle‟s Creed), not the Nicene; that in itself indicates his self-assurance as the heir of the prince of the apostles.10 Surprised as we were at the late arrival of your charity's letter, we read it and examined the account of what the bishops had done. He had no idea how he ought to think about the incarnation of the Word of God; and he had no desire to acquire the light of understanding by working through the length and breadth of the Holy Scriptures.