CHALCEDON

The Acts of the council of Chalcedon were translated into English and published by Price &
Gaddis in 2005. The book is available as a Google book, for those who do not want to pay
$120.
E x c e r p t s o f t h e b o o k a r e a v a i l a b l e o n l i n e :
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/chalcedon.asp
The translators are Western scholars, who cannot be accused of being biased towards
St. Dioscorus or the followers of Miaphysis. In the introduction, which is worthy of reading by
anyone who has keen interest in this council, the translators dispell many myths and
misconceptions that have prevailed for 15 centuries.
The translators give us the historical setting for this council:

On 26 July 450, the emperor Theodosius II was thrown from his horse while
hunting and died soon after. His sister Pulcheria assumed effective power, and
within the space of a few months executed the eunuch Chrysaphius, announced
her marriage to the elderly Thracian general Marcian, arranged his acclamation
as the new emperor, and in short order set about undoing the work of
Dioscorus. The new regime immediately reached out to Leo, who demanded
acceptance of his Tome as a condition for re-establishing communion.1

Leo gave Dioscorus’ council (Ephesus II) a name that stuck, calling it Latrocinium , a “council
of robbers” The Alexandrian bishop himself was characterised as a “tyrant-bishop”, driven by
pride, arrogance and rage to divide the church in his pursuit of power.”2

In May of 45 I, Marcian sent out letters summoning bishops to a council that

would meet in September in the city of Nicaea. The choice of venue, of course,
was no accident. As Dioscorus had sought to be a second Cyril at a Ephesus II,
so Marcian and Pulcheria reached back to an earlier conciliar model, wishing
to cast themselves as the new Constantine and Helena presiding over the
Second Council of Nicaea.3

For practical reasons the council was later held at Chalcedon. Historians opposed to the
council interpret this as “provision sparing the good name of Nicaea the shame of Chalcedon”.
Here is an excerpt of the first cession:

1
Price & Gaddis Acts of the council of Chalcedon p. 38
2
Ibid p. 39
3
Ibid

1
 Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood
up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received
directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman
city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus
is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take
his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your
holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.4

The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer
against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?
Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he
has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.
The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has been
said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let
him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom
he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic
See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.
Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We
cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop, who governs the
Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
The most glorious judges and the full senate, said: It is proper that you should set forth
specifically in what he hath gone astray.
Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We
will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he who is come to be judged
should sit down [as one to give judgment].5
Ecumenical councils have always been held by orders of the emperor. Bishops of Rome
were invited to attend as others were, but they never attended:

Ecumenical councils, summoned by the emperors, were always held not far from
the centres of imperial control in the east. The popes, perhaps for that reason,
quickly established a precedent of refusing to attend these councils in person.
Instead they sent representatives who attempted to create an impression of
being in charge.6

4
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/chalcedon.asp
5
Ibid
6
Price & Gaddis Acts of the council of Chalcedon p. 11

2
If Leo considered Ephesus II illegally held (without his permission), why did he send delegates
who attended the first cession then abstained? The records of Ephesus II were then examined:

Of the 150 bishops at Ephesus II , 124 were also present or represented at

Chalcedon. While the vast majority of these bishops had been complicit in the
decisions of the council, by the time of Chalcedon most of them were only too
willing to evade responsibility by pointing blame solely at Dioscorus, disavowing
statements they had made at Ephesus by claiming coercion or falsification.7

Thus Dioscorus was deserted by his colleagues who decided to save their seats as bishops
rather than to stand for the truth.

Chalcedon would feature numerous examples of bishops disowning or

repudiating statements attributed to them in the record from Ephesus II, or
instead claiming that those statements had been extracted by force. But while
two years later many sought to evade responsibility by pinning sole responsibility
on Dioscorus, a close reading of the record suggests that a substantial majority
of the bishops present went along willingly or even enthusiastically.8

At the conclusion of the first session the imperial commissioners pronounced a provisional
sentence of deposition aegainst six bishops, but in the course of the fourth session, all but
Dioscorus would be rehabilitated and seated again.9 Some of the bishops objected to this
injustice: “This (decision to depose Dioscorus) met with the approval of all the bishops except
those of Illyrica who said: ‘We all have erred, let us all be pardoned.’”10
The rest of the cessions will be held under the tyrannical fist of the representatives of
Leo and the emperor:

All significant decisions were taken in advance or behind the scenes, while the
role of the formal sessions was largely to approve those decisions by unanimous
consensus. ... In some later sessions, particularly those concerning the faith. it
seems likely that the transcript does not record all that was said.11

7
Price & Gaddis Acts of the council of Chalcedon p. 45
8
Ibid p. 32
9
Ibid p. 45
10
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/chalcedon.asp
11
Price & Gaddis Acts of the council of Chalcedon p. 41

3
The council then moved to discuss issues of doctrine. The Tome of Leo was read:

The rest of the bishops, while happy to accept Leo's teaching as orthodox,
preferred not to commit themselves to a definitive rejection of the one-nature
interpretations so widespread in the eastern provinces.12

At the end of the second cession, “some bishops petitioned for a general pardon of all
who had been kept out. This proposition made great confusion, in the midst of which the
session was dissolved by the judges.”13

The third session, in the meantime, focused squarely on the conduct of

Dioscorus himself, employing a discourse of ecclesiastical “tyranny” to cast him
as sole architect of the “Robber Council”. intent on destroying the peace of the
church through his rage and ambition. Dioscorus chose to stay away, correctly
surmising that he could not receive a fair hearing from a council determined to
overturn everything he had done at Ephesus. Ignoring three summonses from
the synod, Dioscorus incurred the canonical penalty of deposition. The
vagueness of the exact nature of the charges against him was entirely deliberate.
The authorities were no doubt relieved to be able to depose him for simple
failure to appear, and thus to avoid pronouncing any judgement upon his
orthodoxy.14

Having disposed of St. Dioscorus, the representatives of the emperor asked the bishops to
write a new definition of the faith. This they adamantly refused:

The most reverend bishops cried; Any other setting forth no one makes, neither
will we attempt it, neither will we dare to set forth [anything new]. For the
fathers taught, and in their writings are preserved, what things were set forth by
them, and further than this we can say nothing.15

The bishops were reluctant to draw a new definition of the faith, since both Nicaea and
Ephesus forbade this, but the emperor threatened to hold a new council in Italy. The council
would have been held in Latin and where Leo would have many supporters, something that
was thought to be more serious than writing a new definition:

12
Ibid p. 46
13
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/chalcedon.asp
14
Price & Gaddis Acts of the council of Chalcedon p. 45
15
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/chalcedon.asp

4
 Their first attempt at a definition, which seems to have contained a compromise
formula based on “from two natures” that was acceptable to the vast majority
(including St. Dioscorus), was not enough to satisfy the papal legates. Tellingly,
the text of that draft creed was not recorded in the minutes. Theology was
apparently too important to be left to 300 bishops, so when they were
commanded to revise the formula, the task was entrusted to a select committee
of leading churchmen who met behind closed doors. No records were kept of
their deliberations, and the definition they finally produced was offered to the
council as a finished product - faith should not be seen to be subject to debate
or discussion.16

This shows the irregularity that this council embodied. Note that by now the number of bishops
deliberating came down from 630 to 300. Many excused themselves by reason of health or
family emergency to go home. The agenda was controlled by the emperor and the
representatives of Leo:
The bishops were bound by Leo's adamant insistence on a full statement of two natures
after the incarnation, but they sought also to produce a formula that would not exclude: those
of a more traditionally Alexandrian and miaphysite bent. The Definition of Faith, with its
intricate and elaborate affirmations, declarations, qualifications and reservations, reflected the
complexity of the council's task. Chalcedon walked a fine line between necessary clarification
and impermissible innovation, facing the burden of proving that its own formulation was
consistent with Nicaea and the fathers so as to avoid charges of invention.17
The council's ambitious project inspired immediate opposition in a diverse group
ranging from Egyptian bishops still loyal to Dioscorus, to Constantinopolitan monks not used
to obeying their bishop. They considered themselves both pro-Nicene and anti-Nestorian, and
worried that the council was falling into heretical error. The attitude displayed by these
“Nicene fundamentalists” at the fourth session offers an early glimpse of the sentiments that
would drive the broad-based opposition to Chalcedon in later years.18
Continuing its reversal of the decisions taken at Ephesus II, the council then undertook
the rehabilitation of Theodoret and Ibas. Both men aroused loud and vocal opposition, and
the case of Ibas had to be prolonged for an additional day as petitioners brought complaints
against him and sought to re-examine earlier proceedings in his case. After hearing the
transcript from the inquiry held at Tyre and Berytus in early 449, which had, in less than
resounding terms, acquitted Ibas of the heresy and misconduct charges against him, the
imperial commissioners called for a reading of the minutes from Ephesus II relating to Ibas.
But it must have become clear at this point that reopening the Acts of the Latrocinium could

16
Price & Gaddis Acts of the council of Chalcedon p. 46
17
Ibid p. 47
18
Ibid

5
only embarrass the more than 100 bishops who had then cheered the council.19
It became immediately apparent that the council, far from securing a doctrinal
consensus, was itself becoming a source of further controversy. Most opponents of the council
did not necessarily support Eutyches. They did, however, regard Chalcedon as at best an
unnecessary innovation upon Nicaea and at worst as doctrinally unsound, fearing that both
Leo’s Tome and the convoluted Definition of Faith came dangerously close to a “Nestorian”
division of Christ into two persons.20
At the end of the fourth session:

The most glorious judges and the great senate said: Since we see that the Holy
Gospels have been placed alongside of your holiness, let each one of the bishops
here assembled declare whether the epistle of most blessed archbishop Leo is
in accordance with the exposition of the 318 fathers assembled at Nice and with
the decrees of the 150 fathers afterwards assembled in the royal city
(Constantinople). To this question the bishops answered one by one, until 161
separate opinions had been given.21

Of the 300 or so that remained after the deposition of St. Dioscorus, 161 approved by standing
and supporting the “Tome”. They were only asked to declare whether the Tome agreed with
the first two ecumenical councils, which the 161 bishops (of the original 630) affirmed.
Fr. John Romanides (Greek Orthodox) presented a paper to the Orthodox-Oriental
consultation, in which he commented on Chalcedon. Here are some of his observations:

It is important to note that Theodoret's profession of the faith of Cyril and the Third
Ecumenical Council at session VIII of the Council of Chalcedon was accompanied by much
hesitation on his part and Episcopal cries of " Nestorian" against him. This is a clear proof that
had Dioscoros accepted to appear before the Council and face Theodoret his accuser, he
would have certainly been cleared in his fight against this Nestorian enemy of Cyril. He would
have been found at least doctrinally, if not canonically, excusable for his excommunication of
Leo for his support of this Nestorian. Dioscoros and his bishops excommunicated Leo upon
approaching Chalcedon and learning that the legates of Pope Leo were insisting that
Theodoret must participate as a member of the Council. Leo insisted upon this in spite of the
fact that Theodoret had never yet accepted the Third Ecumenical Council, the Twelve
Chapters of Cyril, the condemnation of Nestorius, nor the re-conciliation of 433 between John
of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria. It seems that the Chalcedonian Orthodox must let these
facts sink into their heads and take them seriously. ... Dioscoros was legally and canonically

19
Price & Gaddis Acts of the council of Chalcedon p. 50
20
Ibid p. 51
21
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/chalcedon.asp

6
correct by excommunicating Leo for his support of Theodoret before the Council of
Chalcedon. Ephesus 449 was still before the Council of Chalcedon a part of Roman Law in
spite Leo of Rome. From a purely doctrinal viewpoint the Pope of Rome was guilty of
supporting a Nestorian and a vigorous enemy of the Twelve Chapters, which were the basis of
the doctrinal decision of the Third Ecumenical Council.22

Therefore before the Council of Chalcedon in 451 Theodoret was under condemnation by the
Roman Laws of both Ephesus 431 and 449. Ephesus 449 was not yet in the process of being
repealed or accepted as was finally done item by item. Thus Chalcedon did not repeal the
condemnations of Theodoret and Ibas by Ephesus 449. On the contrary Chalcedon enforced
these decisions against both and required that both must repent for their actions against Cyril
and the Third Ecumenical Council, accept Ephesus 431 and their own condemnation by
Ephesus 449, and to ask forgiveness. In other words Chalcedon completely supported
Dioscoros on these questions.23

The question is now raised whether there were substantial grounds for Dioscoros'
excommunication of Leo of Rome. It would further seem possible to argue that this
excommunication was somewhat like that of Cyril's excommunication of Nestorius when the
latter refused to subscribe to the Twelve Chapters. Cyril did this with the full support of the
Pope Celestine of Rome. But in the case before us in 451 we have Pope Leo of Rome himself
who is being excommunicated by Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria. The reason behind this is the
simple fact that Pope Leo was in reality repudiating His predecessor's support of Cyril's Twelve
Chapters by supporting a fanatic enemy of Cyril and his Twelve Chapters.24

Theodoret was a heretic before Leo got involved with him and he remained a heretic all the
time that he was being supported by Leo. Just after Chalcedon Leo wrote in a letter to
Theodoret about their common victory they had won at the Council of Chalcedon, yet in the
very same letter complained about Theodoret's tardiness in rejecting Nestorius. In other words
Leo supported Theodoret during all the time that he had not one confession of the Orthodox
faith to his credit.25
It is refreshing to see an Eastern Orthodox priest and theologian support St. Dioscorus
and condemn Leo of Rome. Finally after 15 centuries the truth about our great saint
Dioscorus, the 25th pope of Alexandria is shining through the fog of Chalcedon.

22
http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/1994_3_4_Romanides.pdf
23
Ibid
24
Ibid
25
Ibid