The Council of Chalcedon 451: In Search of a Nuanced and Balanced

Christology
Matthew J. Pereira1

I. Identity of Jesus Christ: From the Gospels to the Ecumenical Councils

Identity and Mission of Jesus Christ
From the early days of the Christian movement onwards, confessing the true identity of
Jesus Christ was an upmost concern of the community. One of the primary aims of the Gospels is
to reveal the identity and to explain the theological significance of Jesus Christ. Each of the
Gospels narrates how the first disciples wrestled with apprehending the nature and mission of
Christ. In the Gospel according to Matthew, prior to foretelling his death and resurrection, Jesus
turned to his inner circle of disciples and asked:
“Who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living
God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has
not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”2

This question posed by Christ, “Who do you say that I am,” first answered by his disciples, was
then returned to by each succeeding generation of Christians who rearticulate the mystery of the
Incarnation. The identity of Jesus Christ is a soteriological question. Peter’s confession of Jesus
Christ as the Messiah suggests that he believed him to be the anointed One, promised in the
prophetic writings, who was to bring mighty deliverance to the chosen people. From Peter’s
confession onwards, the church has continually professed Jesus Christ in light of its messianic
expectations. The identity of Jesus Christ must align with his soteriological mission. The Gospels
witness to the divine and human nature of Jesus Christ, but the biblical writers never attempted
to explain how these two natures coexist in the one and same Lord Christ.3 The biblical
testimony of the one Lord Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Son of God, who suffered in on the cross
as a ransom for many, never entailed concise theological explication in the New Testament.

1 Matthew J. Pereira (Ph.D., Columbia University) is a postdoctoral fellow with the Bellarmine Society of Fellows at
Loyola Marymount University (Los Angeles, CA.).
2 Matthew 16:15b-19 (NRSV).
3 Regarding the biblical witness, Jenkins notes, “The Bible is anything but clear on the relationship between Christ’s

human and divine natures, and arguably, it is just not possible to reconcile its various statements on this matter.”
Philip Jenkins, Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the
Next 1,500 Years (New York: HarperOne, 2010), vii.

1
Later generations of Christians took up the task of apprehending the soteriological significance of
the relationship between the divine and human natures in Jesus Christ as witnessed in the biblical
accounts.

Imperialism and Conciliarism

Emperors, empresses and imperial officials convoked and oversaw the ecumenical
councils. The imperial rulers demanded uniformity, and the bishops under the threat of
expulsion, acclaimed conciliar statements in unison. Rival theologians demonstrated an equally
deep understanding of Scripture and the church fathers, which supported their theological
conclusions. Orthodoxy was largely determined by imperial mandate, where the interests of rival
emperors and queens, the role of competing ecclesiastical princes, and the empire’s military
successes or failures defined the tradition of the church.4 The political dimension is essential to a
robust interpretation of the councils. Additionally, the theology of the council fathers contributed
to the development of the confessional tradition of the councils. The ecumenical councils
represent a series politicized and ritualized attempts at preserving and rearticulating the identity
of Jesus Christ.5 The ecumenical councils are more than occasions for establishing doctrinal
orthodoxy; indeed, the councils are relevant for political, ecclesiastical, cultural and theological
analyses, which all merit consideration on their own terms. However, this present chapter offers a
reassessment of the Council of Chalcedon (451) and the Chalcedonian Definition, with emphasis
placed on analyzing the traditioning of the Christian faith.6 Chalcedon is neither an isolated

4 Jenkins, xiv.
5 The amount of scholarship devoted to the ecumenical councils is immense in both breadth and depth. It goes
beyond the scope of this chapter to provide an exhaustive bibliography; however, for some of the more accessible
overviews of persons, events and theology of the seven ecumenical councils, the following studies (here provided in
ascending chronological order) may be useful starting points: Karl Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church
from the Original Documents, five volumes, trans. William R. Clark (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1972 [volumes 2-5
reprinted from the 1883-96 edition]); Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition. Volume One: From the Apostolic Age to
Chalcedon (451), 2d ed., trans. John Bowen (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975); Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven
Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987); Stephen W. Need, Truly
Divine & Truly Human: The Story of Christ and the Seven Ecumenical Councils (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008). For a concise
overview of the ecuemical councils, see Matthew J. Pereira, “Ecumenical Councils,” in The Encyclopedia of Eastern
Orthodox Christianity, volume 1, ed. John Anthony McGuckin (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011): 205-8.
6 Richard Price and Michael Gaddis have recenltey published the authoritative English translation of the

proceedings of Chalcedon as follows: The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Translated Texts for Historians 45, 3 volumes,
trans. Richard Price and Michael Gaddis. (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005). The notes and introductions
by Price and Gaddis are valuable as well. In the preface to the first volume, Price and Gaddis explain, “The division
of labour between the two authors was as follows. The translation is the work of Richard M. Price, on the basis of a
first draft of the greater part of the text by Michael Gaddis. The General Introduction is by Gaddis, except for
Section V, ‘The Theology of Chalcedon’, which is by Price. The introductions, commentaries and footnotes to each

2
event nor the culmination of decades of doctrinal development; rather, it is the continuation of
doctrinal, canonical and ecclesiastical debates reaching back to the Council of Nicaea (325), up
through the Council of Ephesus (431) and onwards to the Second Council of Constantinople
(553). At Chalcedon (i.e., the Fourth Ecumenical Council), the bishops issued the Chalcedonian
Definition, which is a conservative statement that reaffirms the Nicene Creed (325), the Niceno-
Constantinopolitan Creed (381), Cyril of Alexandria’s writings associated with the Council of
Ephesus (431), and Leo’s Letter to Flavian (i.e., Leo’s Tome). The Definition provides a
rearticulation of the faith, which may be imagined as a gestalt of the Christian tradition,
suggesting that the settlement of Chalcedon should be interpreted in a holistic and integrative
way rather than in terms of its individual parts.7
Each generation orthodox bishops in attendance at the ecumenical councils claimed to
stand in continuity with the church tradition.8 However, on occasion, the council fathers
elaborated upon the confessions of their predecessors. The tension between the preservation and
augmentation of the tradition is a major accomplishment of the council fathers at Chalcedon. In
his assessment of Chalcedon, David Gwynn asserts, “The purpose of the bishops who gathered at
the Council of Chalcedon was to safeguard the essential continuity of Christian tradition while
adapting and interpreting that tradition to meet the needs of their own time.”9 Chalcedon reveals
the immense challenges involved in advancing tradition through the reception, interpretation
and adaptation of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381) and the Church Fathers (e.g., Cyril of
Alexandria and Pope Leo). The majority of bishops assumed that the tradition was established,

section of text, the glossary, and the indices are by Price.” Price and Gaddis, Acts of Chalcedon, vol. 1: ix. From here
onward, when citing from the translation of the Acts of Chalcedon, the following abbreviated form of citation will be
given: Acts, session number.paragraph number, volume number:page number(s). When citing from the introductions
to the respective sessions, the following abbreviated form will be given: Price, Acts of Chalcedon, volume number: page
number(s). For studies on the Council of Chalcedon, see M.J. Parys “The Historical Evidence on the Council of
Chalcedon: The Council of Chalcedon as Historical Event,” The Ecumenical Review 22, no. 4 (1970): 305-20; Robert
Victor Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon (London: S.P.C.K., 1953).
7 Gestalt theory (i.e., “Law of Simplicity” ot “Law of Pragnanz”) dates back to the late 19th century in Germany.

Gestalt theorists argue that the whole is greater than the parts of any system. Propoents of Gestalt theory contend
that we tend to construct structure and harmony from disorganization. The Chalcedonian Definition fits well within
this paradigm as it is a statement that should be read as a holistic statement that attempted to create structure and
harmony from the past.
8 In this present chapter, the terms “orthodox” and “church” are used in the lower case to denote a generalized

(non-essentialist) understanding of these terms. The term orthodox is used to denote those theologians who believed
that they upheld the true meaning of the Nicene Creed. The term church is used in the universal sense, which
denotes Eastern and Western metropolitans of Late Antiquity. Both terms are used as broad placemarkers rather
than specific to a particular person or tradition.
9 David M. Gwynn, “The Council of Chalcedon and the Definition of Christian Tradition,” in Chalcedon in Context:

Church Councils 400-700, eds. Richard Price and Mary Whitby (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009), 23.

3
that there was continuity from the Nicene Creed to Ephesus. However, the non-Chalcedonian
and miaphysite factions challenged this assumed unbroken narrative from Nicea to Ephesus.10
When the officials called for a Definition, the bishops refused to submit a new confession. In
agreement with the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Ephesus (431),11 the council fathers
believed the Nicene Creed was entirely sufficient, thus there was no need for a new Definition.12
On the one hand, the council fathers reaffirmed and rearticulated church tradition under the
mandate of imperial edict, which means it was imperial theology from above; on the other hand,
the committees of select bishops enjoyed some level of influence in shaping the tradition.

II. From Ephesus (431) to Chalcedon (451)

Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius and the Twelve Chapters
Following the Council of Ephesus (431), a defeated Nestorius of Constantinople was
forced into exile, thereafter remembered as a heresiarch, whereas Cyril rose to the status of
Church Father.13 After the Council of Ephesus, decades of negotiating and interpreting Cyril’s
most controversial teachings had ensued.14 Cyril triumphed over Nestorius, but there was
“frustration of Cyril’s further plans, as he was obliged by the emperor in 433 to accept the
‘Formula of Reunion,’ an ambiguous profession of faith drawn up by Nestorius’ allies, and in 439
to call off his campaign to secure the condemnation of the views of Theodore of Mopsuestia (d.

10 For a discussion of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (i.e. miaphysite Christians), see Vilakuvel C. Samuel, The
Council of Chalcedon Re-examined: A Historical Theological Survey (Madras: Christian Literature Society for the Senate of
Serampore College, 1977). For a discussion of the non-Chalcedonian churches, see Sebastian Brock, “The
Christology of the Church of the East in the Synods of the Fifth to Early Seventh Centuries: Preliminary
Considerations and Materials,” ed. George Dion Dragas, Aksum,Thyateira: A Festschrift for Archbishop Methodius
(London: Thyateira House, 1985), 125-42.
11 In his Life of Constantine (III.6), Eusebius of Caesarea coined the term “ecumenical council” in reference to the

Council of Nicaea (325).

12 Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria both appealed to the Nicene Creed. By the fifth century, the

contests over theological doctrines was simultaneously a debate over who rightly intereperted the church fathers and
the ecumencial creeds. For further discussion, see Thomas Graumann, Die Kirche der Väter: Vätertheologie und Väterbeweis
in den Kirchen des Ostens bis zum Konzil von Ephesus (431) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 278-342.
13 There are a number of studies on Cyril and Nestorius. For two recent and valuable studies, see John Anthony

McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. Its History, Theology, and Texts (Crestwood: Saint
Vladimir’s Press, 2004); Susan Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
14 In addition to Cyril, Augustine of Hippo’s theological legacy was negotiated in the fifth and sixth centuries.

Augustine’s doctrine of predestination was a problematic teaching, which was contested and negotiated, leading up
to the canons at the Second Council of Orange (529). For a valuable study on the the reception of Augustine, see
Ralph W. Mathisen, “For Specialists Only. The Reception of Augustine and His Teaching in Vth – Century Gaul,”
Augustine: Presbyter Factus Sum. Collectanea Augustiniana, eds. Joseph T.Lienhard, et al. (New York: Peter Lang, 1993),
19-41. For the Canons of Orange, see F.H. Woods, trans., Canons of the Second Council of Orange, A.D. 529: Text, with an
Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Oxford: James Thornton, 1882).

4
428), credited with having been Nestorius’ teacher.”15 Cyril was never in control of his
theological legacy.16 Political and ecclesiastical authorities played a significant role in establishing
Cyril’s canonized teachings. Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius, which included an appendix of Twelve
Chapters, was the most contested writing in the period between Ephesus and Chalcedon.17 Cyril
composed the Third Letter to Nestorius towards the conclusion of Ephesus. He wrote the letter with
victory ensured, which may have emboldened him to include his Twelve Chapters (i.e., Anathemas).
In the Twelve Chapters, Cyril affirmed the Theotokos,18 communicatio idiomatum and the single
hypostasis of the human and divine natures in the divine Logos.19 The most controversial point in
the Twelve Chapters is Cyril’s assertion that the Word (Logos) of God suffered, which was the logical
outworking of the communicatio idiomatum,20 that affirmed the divine and human natures
communicated properties in the one hypostasis of the Word of God.21 In the 12th anathema, Cyril
declared, “If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and tasted death

15 Richard Price, “The Council of Chalcedon (451): A Narrative,” in Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400-700
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009), 70.
16 Of course, certain church fathers attempted to shape their own legacies. Gregory of Nazianzus (329-90) composed

an autobiographical poem (De Vita Sua) and Augustine of Hippo (354-430) wrote his classic autobiographical work
Confessions. Both of these church fathers exerted much effort in order to shape the ways in which they were to be
remembered, but even in their case, the succeeding generations of interpreters have indelibly shaped their caonical
legacies.
17 For a translation of Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius and the Twelve Chapters, see McGuckin, Christological Controversy,

266-75.
18 The term Theotokos, which is transalted as God-bearer or Mother of God, is an appelation ascribed to the Virgin

Mary in order to affirm the full diety of the Son of God. For further discussion, see George S. Bebis, “Theotokos,” in
Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, eds. Everett Ferguson, et al., 2d. ed. (New York: Garland Publishing, 1998), 1124.
From here onward, the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity will be cited as EEC.
19 Greer asserts the four themes of Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas as Theotokos, communicatio idiomatum, the union of divine

and human natures in one hypostasis, and the suffering of the Word of God. For further comment, see Rowan Greer,
Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian (London: Faith Press, 1961), 35.
20 The term communicatio idiomatum (often transalted as “Communion of Properties” or “Communion of Idioms”)

comes out of the Latin tradition. The term is often associated with Leo’s Tome, where the two idiomata refer to what is
“proper or peculiar to a nature.” Therefore, the idiomata of the human nature is hunger, weakness and so forth,
whereas the idiomata of the divine nature is omnipotence, immoratlity and so forth. McGuckin rightly notes that
“Alexandrians had long been accustomed to refer the two idiomata indiscriminately as a mark of their strong support
of the single-subject Christology. Thus, Cyril often spoke of the ‘sufferings of the divine Word’ as such.” For further
discussion, see John Anthony McGuckin, “Communion of Properties (Communion of Idioms),” in The Westminster
Handbook to Patristic Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 70-1.
21 The Greek term hypostasis has been interpreted in English as “person,” “substance,” “subject,” or “subsistence.”

The term hypostasis was employed in trinitarian and christological discourse. Apollinarius of Laodicea (fl. 375) was
probably the first theologian to use hypostasis in a christological manner. Apollinarius argued that the Word of God
usurped the human “spirit” or “intellect,” consequently, there was a single divine hypostasis within Christ. At the
Council of Chacledon, the term hypostasis was reemployed in a different manner from Apollinarius. Chacledon
affirmed Cyril’s assertion that Christ is one hypostasis of the divine Son, but at the same time, there was to be no
blurring the lines between hypostasis and nature. Here, Chalcedon appears to be in agreement with the use of the
term hypostasis within the grammar of the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus, Chalcedon asserts one divine hypostasis or
prosopon (i.e., person) that has two uncofnused and inseperable natures (i.e., divine and human). For further discussion
of hypostasis, see Richard A. Norris, “Hypostasis,” in EEC, 551-53.

5
in the flesh, becoming the first-born from the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let
him be anathema.”22 In the Latin West, Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius and the Twelve Chapters was
largely ignored after Ephesus.23 However, in the Eastern ecclesiastical networks, Cyril’s Third
Letter to Nestorius and the Twelve Chapters emerged as a dividing issue between the more moderate
and radical Cyrillines. The Twelve Chapters were probably read with Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius
during the first session at the Council of Ephesus (431).24 Here, in the opening stages of Ephesus,
Acacius of Melitene defended the Twelve Chapters without any referencing of divine suffering. The
council fathers likely presumed that Acacius affirmed divine suffering since theopaschism was
often equated with the Twelve Chapters.25 This was the first instance, within context of conciliar
proceedings, that Cyril’s Third Letter and Twelve Chapters became a divisive issue. Here, at the
Council of Ephesus, the majority (if not all) of bishops affirmed the Nicene Creed, but
divisiveness emerged over the proper interpretation of Creed of 325. By the end of the fifth
century, hard line Cyrillines largely believed that Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius and the Twelve
Chapters stood as a faithful interpretation and continuation of the Nicene Creed, whereas the
more moderate Cyrillines argued that these writings transgressed the orthodox tradition.
In a document drafted during an impromptu side council (i.e., Conciliabulum) at Ephesus
(431), John, bishop of Antioch (r. 428-441/42) rebuked Cyril’s Third Letter,26 by associating it with
the heresies of Arius, Apollinarius and Eunomius.27 In response, while under house arrest in
Ephesus, Cyril wrote his Explanation of the Twelve Chapters.28 In his explanation of the 12th
anathema, Cyril declared that Jesus Christ, the Son and Word of God the Father, became flesh.29
He added that the Word of God remained God even within the flesh after the Incarnation.30

22 Cyril, Twelve Chapters, in McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 275.
23 Hefele, History of the Councils, vol. 3, 104.
24 Cyril, Explanation of the Twelve Chapters, in McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 83.
25 In his account of Acacius at Ephesus, McGuckin asserted, “Acacius’ fault, apparently, was to teach that the

divinity suffered, which probably means no more than that he defended the orthodoxy of the Twelve Chapters.”
McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 104.
26 John of Antioch (r. 428-441/42) was a moderate ally of Nestorius during the Council of Ephesus (431). John and

his Antiochene party showed up late to the Council of Ephesus because of inclimate weather. By the time John had
arrived at Ephesus, the council bishops had already condmened Nestorius. John convenved a side council (i.e.,
Conciliabulum). For further discussion, see Frederick W. Norris, “John of Antioch (d. 441/442),” in EEC, 625.
27 The charge of Apollinarism against Cyril’s Anathenas continued throughout the Council of Ephesus. The bishops

worried about the crypto-Apollinarism of the Twelve Chapters, but they were receptive of Cyril’s explanation where he
asserted his only purpose was to correct Nestorius.
28 For an English translation of Cyril’s Explanation of the Twelve Chapters, see McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 282-

93.
29 Ibid., 288-9.
30 Ibid., 289.

6
Cyril did not renounce his teachings on divine suffering (i.e., Word of God) in the flesh. More so
than most theologians in the fifth century, Cyril boldly affirmed the mystery of salvation by
affirming a qualified notion of divine impassibility, where the Word of God suffered in the flesh.
In response to the fallout after Ephesus, the Syrian bishops held their own local synod.31 At this
synod, the Syrian bishops defined the limits of the Christian tradition by reaffirming the Nicene
Creed and Athanasius’ Letter to Epictetus,32 but condemning Cyril’s Twelve Chapters.33 As the divide
between the Alexandrians and Antiochenes increased, the emperor and patriarch of
Constantinople encouraged reconciliation between these metropolitan sees. Both patriarchates
made demands prior to reaching rapprochement. In 432, the Syrian bishops called for Cyril to
recant his Twelve Chapters. In response to this request, Cyril sent a letter to Acacius of Beroea,34 in
which he explained that the Twelve Chapters were only directed against Nestorius.35 Cyril never
rejected the Twelve Chapters, but as a means of compromise, he narrowed their reach to Nestorius,
which meant they were not meant as essential to the canonical tradition. In return, the Syrian
bishops quietly condemned Diodore of Tarsus36 and Theodore of Mopsuestia.37 In both cases,
these acts of renunciation set boundaries around the canonical tradition. With Cyril and the
Syrians making concessions, the next step towards reconciliation and the establishing of a
common creedal tradition would be reached with the Formula of Reunion (i.e., Cyril’s Letter to John of
Antioch).38

Formula of Reunion (433)

31 Syrian bishops in attendance included: Alexander of Hierapolis, Acacius of Beroea, Macarius of Laodicea,
Andrew of Samosota, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus. For further review, see Ibid., 111, fn. 188.
32 For further discussion, see Joseph Lebon, “Altération doctrinale de la lettre à Epictète de saint Athanase,” Revue

D’Histoire Ecclésiastique 31 (1935): 713-61.

33 McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 111.
34 For an English translation of Cyril’s Letter to Acacius of Beroea, see Ibid., 336-42.
35 Cyril never rejected the Twelve Anathemas, but he minimized their reach for the sake of reconciliation. For further

discussion, see Ibid., 112.

36 Diodore of Tarsus founded a monastery and school in the proximity of Antioch. John Chrysostom and Theodore

of Mopsuestia were two of his most well known students. For further disucssion, see Rowan A. Greer, “Diodore of
Tarsus (d. ca. 390),” in EEC, 331-32.
37 For further discussion, see Rowan A. Greer, “Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 250-428),” in EEC, 1116-17.
38 For an English translation of the Formula of Reunion, that is Cyril’s Letter to John of Antioch, see J. McGuckin,

Christological Controversy, 343-8. For the Epistula Iohannis Antiocheni ad Cyrillum in the Acta Concilioroum
Oecumenicorum, E. Schwartz (ed.), see ACO 1.1.4: 15-20. From here onward, all references to Schwartz’s Acta
Concilioroum Oecumenicorum will be abbreviated as: (ACO volume number.part number[s]: page number[s]).
Furthermore, from here onwards, Cyril’s Letter to John of Antioch (a.k.a. Formula of Reunion), will be abbreviated as Ep.
39, [with] section number.

7
 In August of 431, Emperor Theodosius requested a confession of faith from John of
Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrrhus,39 which could potentially serve as the basis for ecclesiastical
reconciliation.40 Cyril received this confession in correspondence from John of Antioch. After
reading the letter, Cyril requested a stronger condemnation of Nestorius, but overall, he
approved of its orthodoxy.41 In the spring of 433, Cyril composed a Letter to John of Antioch (i.e., Let
the Heavens Rejoice), in which he included a confession of faith, today known as the Formula of
Reunion.42 The Formula affirmed the first proposition of the Nicene Creed, which states Jesus
Christ “is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father according to the Godhead” and
“consubstantial (homoousios) with us according to the manhood.”43 Furthermore, the Formula
asserted a “union of two natures” in the Lord Jesus Christ.44 In the Formula, there is a Cyrilline
emphasis on two natures coming together in one union (henosis).45 The Formula affirmed Mary as
the Theotokos.46 The Formula was a general confession,47 which affirmed the Nicene, Antiochene
and Alexandrian traditions. Under imperial pressure, Cyril and John declared that the Formula
reestablished harmony between Alexandria and Antioch.48
The Formula was formative for the Chalcedonian Definition, which in part, can be seen in
its avoidance of difficult doctrines. Most notably, the Formula never mentions the suffering and
death of Christ. This is glaring lacuna, especially in a creedal statement that purports to be in the

39 Theodoret was a monk-bishop of Cyrrhus, who defended the two-nature Christogy of the Antiochene tradition.
He was the leading spokesperson of Antioch at Ephesus (431). In his work Eranistes (published in 447), Theodoret
subversively attacked Cyril’s single-nature Christology. At Ephesus II (449), Dioscorus deposed of Theodoret, but
then at Chacledon (451), he was restored into full communion with the church after renouncing Nestorius. For
further discussion, see Gerard H. Ettlinger, “Theodoret of Cyrus (393-460 [or 457/8 or 466]),” in EEC, 1117.
40 Epistula Iohannis Antiocheni ad Cyrillum. ACO 1.1.7: 151-2; McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 113.
41 Immediately prior to reasserting the Formula in his letter to John of Antioch, Cyril declared that the creedal

statement was not a “new invention but rather a full exposition of what we have received from the tradition of the
holy Fathers at Nicaea.” Cyril, Ep. 39 (ACO 1.1.4: 17); McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 344.
42 For valuable studies on the Formula of Reunion, see André de Halleux, “L’Accord Christologique de 433: Un

Modéle de Réconciliation Ecclésiale?” Communion et Reunion: Melanges Jean-Marie Roger Tillard (1995): 293-99; Graham
Gould, “Cyril of Alexandria and the Formula of Reunion,” Downside Review 106 (1988): 236. For the Formula of
Reunion, see Cyril, Ep. 39, sec. 5 (ACO 1.1.4: 17).
43 Cyril, Ep. 39, sec. 5 (ACO 1.1.4: 17).
44 Ibid.
45 This emphasis on the single subjectivity of the Word of God is key to Cyril’s Christology. After affirming the two

natures, the Formula asserts the unity of “one Christ, one Son, and one Lord. Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 In her assessment, Wessel contends that John of Antioch was truly committed to reconciliation, but nonetheless he

made “fewer doctrinal concessions” than Cyril. Wessel, 272.

48 In a letter addressed to Pope Xystus, John of Antioch affirmed that the Antiochenes and Alexandrians confessed

together one Christ, Son and Lord in the union of two natures. Epistula Iohannis Antiocheni ad Xystum papam (ACO
1.1.7: 159 [6-12]). Also, see Relatio Iohannis Antiocheni ad imperatores (ACO 1.1.7: 157, lines 29-31; ACO 1.1.7: 158, [22-
4]).

8
Nicene tradition. The Formula affirmed the first proposition of the Nicene Creed, which is the
consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; however, the second proposition of the Nicene
Creed, Jesus Christ suffered, is not affirmed. The Nicene Creed states, “He suffered, and on the
third day, rose again.”49 The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are central to the Nicene
Creed. Nonetheless, this Gospel declaration “Christ crucified” is not broached within the
Formula. Cyril surely recognized this problematic omission within the Formula. In his
correspondence to John of Antioch, Cyril concluded by rebuking theologians who declared that
the body of Christ came down from heaven rather than coming through the womb of the Virgin
Mary. At this point in the letter, Cyril affirms the theological import of the self-emptying of Jesus
Christ (Philippians 2:5-11) and Christ’s sufferings in the flesh (1 Peter 4:1).50 The sufferings of Christ
dominate Cyril’s concluding comments in the letter to John. He proclaims that Christ took on
suffering in his flesh.51 At the conclusion of the letter, Cyril assured John that he adhered to the
Church Fathers and ever syllable of the Nicene Creed.52 This assurance may be interpreted as a
subversive correction of the Formula, which deviates from the Nicene faith by omitting the
suffering of Christ. Cyril reminds John that he remained faithful Nicea as he simultaneously
rebuked those who omit the sufferings of Christ. This is not a coincidence. Cyril knows that to
affirm the Nicene Creed entails the affirmation of divine suffering. The Formula brought
temporary reconciliation during a difficult ecclesiastical impasse, but Cyril was unsatisfied with
this statement. In his mature writings, after the Formula, Cyril returned to the crucifixion of the
impassible Word of God .
Contemporary assessments of the Formula emphasize that John and Cyril agreed upon the
statement,53 which is partly accurate, but it needs to be equally stressed that Cyril raised
objections, which continued to be contentious during the deliberations and the formation of the
Chalcedonian Definition. In his Letter to John of Antioch, Cyril’s correction of unknown enemies
was simultaneously a challenge to the Formula. The Formula never satisfied the most ardent

49 For a translation of the the Nicene Creed, see Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrien from the Bible to the
Present, John H. Leith (ed.) (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1973), 30-1.
50 Cyril declared, “Moreover, all of us confess that the divine Word is impassible, even if in his all-wise economy of

the mystery he is seen to attribute to himself the sufferings that befall his own flesh.” Cyril, Ep. 39 (ACO 1.1.4: 19);
McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 347.
51 Cyril, Ep. 39 (ACO 1.1.4: 19); McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 347.
52 Ibid.
53 In his assessment, Need concludes, “Cyril and John both agreed on this form of words in 433 and it later played

an important part in the Chalcedonian Definition of 451.” S. Need, Truly Divine and Truly Human, 94.

9
Cyrilline theologians. Dioscorus,54 archbishop of Alexandria, in collaboration with the influential
archimandrite, Eutyches of Constantinople, took up the cause of Cyril after his death.55 In
alliance with Eutyches, Dioscorus abandoned the conciliatory theology of the Formula in favor of
a fully articulated Cyrilline Christology, which obviously entailed an affirmation of divine
suffering. Leading up to the Council of Chalcedon, Cyril’s legacy was negotiated within diverse
ecclesiastical networks, by bishops who opposed Cyril to those who affirmed a moderated
reading of Cyril to those who championed the radical Cyril. The metropolitans of
Constantinople and Alexandria were two of the most powerful forces during the debates over the
theological legacy of Cyril. Flavian (r. 446-49), archbishop of Constantinople, evaded the issue of
divine suffering in his reception of Cyril’s Christology, whereas Dioscorus, archbishop of
Alexandria, affirmed the canonical status of Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius and the Twelve
Anathemas. The theological legacy of Cyril would be further contested in two controversial synods
prior to Chalcedon, then it would once again be negotiated within the grander tradition of the
church at the Council of Chalcedon.

Trial of Eutyches and the Home Synod of Constantinople (448)

In 448, Flavian convoked a Home Synod, attended by some 30 bishops and 18
archimandrites who were already present in Constantinople.56 The only extant record of the
Home Synod comes from the first session of the Council of Chalcedon. The already uneasy
relations between the ecclesiastical factions was completely obliterated with the trial of the
archimandrite Eutyches, which occurred over seven sessions, held over a two-week period from 8
to 22 November, at the Home Synod of Constantinople.57 Formal power resided with the
archbishop Flavian, who ascended to the archbishopric in 446, but Eutyches was the more
imposing figure. Eutyches was the charismatic leader of around 300 monks, spiritual guide to
Emperor Theodosius II and was godfather to Chrysaphius, a powerful eunuch and influential

54 Dioscorus served as the archbishop of Alexandria (444-51). Wessel labels Dioscorus “a Cyrillian fundamentalist”
who “had earlier rejected the Tome outright, that being one of the reasons the conciliar bishops at Chalcedon
deposed and condemned him.” Susan Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and of
a Heretic (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 287. For an overview of Dioscorus of Alexandria, see Frederick
W. Norris, “Dioscorus (d. 454),” in EEC, 336.
55 Eutyches was archimandrite of a Constantinopolitan monastery. The imperial court provided Eutyhces with much

sopport. He was attacked as a heretic because he taught that the sufferings of Christ were to be equated with the
sufferings of the Word of God. For further discussion, see Rowan A. Greer, “Eutyches (fl. 450),” in EEC, 404-5.
56 Jenkins, 181.
57 For the minutes of the Home Synod, see Acts I.223-552, vol.1:168-229.

10
figure in the imperial court, who was also a bitter rival to Pulcheria. Eutyches recounted that
Cyril sent him a record of the Acts of Ephesus, which emboldened his Christological leanings.
Eutyches taught there were two natures prior to the Incarnation, but then afterwards there was
one hypostasis, one prosopon, one Son, one Christ.58 Eutyches was more “Cyrilline than Cyril
himself,”59 which made him a public target of some powerful Christians. Flavian, who recognized
the threat of Eutyches, preferred that the council fathers offered spiritual correction (e.g.,
prayerful guidance) rather than ecclesiastical discipline (i.e., formal condemnation from an
official church body). However, Eusebius, the bishop of Dorylaeum, who led the prosecution at
the Home Synod, remained zealous in his attack against Eutyches.60
In the second session of the Home Synod, Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius and the Formula of
Reunion were read aloud.61 The Home Synod affirmed Cyril’s writings, however, the participants
did not read the Third Letter to Nestorius and Twelve Anathemas. The Formula of Reunion, originally a
work produced by the Antiochene bishops, increasingly became associated with Cyril since he
(i.e. Cyril) included it within his Letter to Flavian. Conversely, Eutyches’ theology was informed by
Cyril’s earlier writings without taking into account the Formula.62 Over the course of the two-week
trial, Eutyches refused to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with humanity and God
the Father. Furthermore, Eutyches denied the two natures of Christ, as this suggest two entities
after the Incarnation. In his concluding condemnation of Eutyches, Flavian provided a
judgement against the now former archimandrite, accusing him of the “heresies of Valentinus
and Apollinarius.”63 In an unprecedented move, some monks of Constantinople signed in
agreement with the condemnation of Eutyches.64 Immediately following the defeat at the Home

58 Davis explains that Eutyches “hated the idea of two natures in Christ after the Incarantion because he understood
nature to mean concrete existence.” Davis, 171.
59 John Anthony McGuckin, “Mystery or Conundrum? The Apprehension of Christ in the Chalcedonian

Definition,” in In the Shadow of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daley, S.J., ed.
Peter W. Martens (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 249.
60 On 8 November, Eusebius read the official indictment against Eutcyhes. Fruthermore, there was summons sent to

Eutyches requesting his presence at the Home Synod. Acts I.223-35, vol.1:168-9.
61 For the readings from Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius and his Letter to John of Antioch at the second session of the trial

of Eutyches, see Ibid., I.238-46, vol.1:172-83.

62 Wessel asserts that Eutyches had “based his understanding exclusively on Cyril’s earlier writings, failing to take

into consideration the letters Cyril wrote after the council met at Ephesus.” Wessel, 280.
63 After associating Eutcyhes with Valentinus and Apollinarius, Flavian’s final judgement asserts: “For this reason, as

we moan and weep for his total perdition, we have decreed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has
blasphemed, that he is deprived of all sacerdotal rank, of communion with us, and of the headship of a monastery.
All persons who in future speak with him or visit him are informed that they too will incur the penalty of
excommunication for failing to avoid his company.” Acts I.551, vol.1:225.
64 Ibid., I.552, vol.1:225-29.

11
Synod, Eutyches sought support from the patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and
Thessalonica. He requested a retrial to be held at an ecumenical council. On 30 March 449,
Emperor Theodosius II sent letters to the bishops ordering an ecumenical council to be convened
at Ephesus in August of 449.65 In the meantime, allies of Eutyches accused the notaries of
revising the Acts of the Home Synod, thereby casting serious questions upon the legitimacy of the
council. In the midst of ongoing turmoil, Flavian sent a letter to Pope Leo. On 13 June 449, Leo
sent correspondence to Flavian, which has been forever memorialized as Leo’s Tome.66 In the
Tome, Leo supported Flavian’s condemnation of Eutyches and affirmed a two-nature Christology.
Leo instructed the papal legates to order the letter to be read at the upcoming general council at
Ephesus, which would be the final major ecclesiastical event prior to the Council of Chalcedon.
Already, prior to the convocation of the council at Ephesus in 449, all of the reconciliatory efforts
forged by Cyril and John and the Formula of Reunion were completely undone by the trial of
Eutyches at the Home Synod.67

Council of Ephesus II (449)

Following the Home Synod of 448, Dioscorus chaired a council at Ephesus in 449 (i.e.,
Ephesus II). Emboldened by the wholehearted support of Theodosius II,68 and in partnership
with other bishops,69 Dioscorus completely controlled the agenda at Ephesus II. Dioscorus, an
extreme champion of Cyrilline Christology,70 bolstered his position by confiscating wealth from
Cyril’s Alexandrian relatives. In keeping with the tradition of Cyril at Ephesus (431), Dioscorus
employed intimidation tactics at Ephesus II. In the first session, convened on 8 August 449, the

65 For Emperor Theodosius II’s letter to Dioscorus, see Ibid., I.24, vol.1:132-4.
66 For Leo’s Tome, see Ibid., II.22, vol.2:14-24.
67 For valuable studies on the Constantinopolitan monks, see H. Bacht, “Die Rolle des Orientalischen Mönchtums in

den kirchenpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen um Chalkedon (431-519), in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, eds. A.
Grillmeier and H. Bacht (Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1954), 193-314; Gilbert Dagron, “Les Moines et la Ville. Le
Monachisme à Constantinople jusqu’au concile de Chalcédoine 451,” Travaux et Mémoires 5 (1970): 229-76.
68 In explaing the heavyhanded acitions of Dioscorus, Jenkins states, “Almost certainly, he was misled by the absolute

support he seemed to be getting from the emperor, who was in a position to overawe any opposition. Or perhaps he
was just Alexandrian, in that he came from a church that had over a century’s history of trampling all opposition,
using a mixture of intimidation, manipulated piety, and the invocation of martyrdom.” Jenkins, 183.
69 The fellow bishops and allies of Dioscorus at Ephesus II included Juvenal of Jeruslaem, Thalassius of Caesarea,

Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustahius of Berytus, and Basil of Isaurian Seleucia. In the first session of Chalcedon, the
council fathers condemned and dimissed these six bishops. Acts I.1068, vol.1:364.
70 In Need’s assessment, Dioscorus was a theologian who “carried some of the tendencies of Alexandrian theology to

an extreme degree.” Need, 95.

12
Roman envoy presented Pope Leo’s Letter to Flavian to the council fathers.71 It was received but
neither read before the council nor placed in the official record.72 It is worth noting here that at
the Council of Chalcedon, the council fathers rebuked Ephesus II for refusing to include Leo’s
Tome.73 The main objective behind the convocation of Ephesus II was the vindication of
Eutyches. Dioscorus ordered a reading from the minutes of the Home Synod, then he pounced
on Flavian and Eusebius, declaring they inserted novel teachings into the church, which is a
direct violation of canon 7 of Ephesus. Dioscorus reaffirmed Nicaea, thereafter stating, “no one is
allowed to compose another creed in addition to it,” then concluding, “Flavian formerly bishops
of the church of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylaeum are seen to have stirred up and
perverted almost everything.”74 After making this judgement, Dioscorus declared that Flavian
and Eusebius are to be stripped of all priestly and episcopal dignity.75 Flavian spent his last days
or months in jail where he died of unknown causes.76
Following the tactics of past Alexandrian bishops who usurped Constantinopolitan
archbishops,77 Dioscorus advanced his agenda despite Roman objections, thereby securing the
condemnation of Flavian and Eusebius on account of their illegal prosecution of Eutyches at the
Home Synod.78 In addition to Flavian and Eusebius, Dioscorus condemned Ibas of Edessa and
others of Nestorianism.79 Dioscorus received Eutyches back into full communion. Emperor

71 “Hilary deacon of Rome, with Florentius bishop of Lydia acting as interpreter, said: ‘The most glorious and
Christian emperor’ out of his attachment and devotion to orthodoxy sent a venerable letter to summon our most
blessed Bishop Leo of the apostolic see to attend this venerable and holy assembly. This could have pleased his piety,
had there been some precedent for it. As your holinesses know well, the pope of the most holy see did not attend the
holy councils at Nicaea or Ephesus or any such holy assembly. Therefore, following this habitual principle, he has
sent us; this most holy man does not doubt that he is present here in us, who, he knows, will do everything that
pertains to the purity of the catholic faith and to respect towards the most holy apostle Peter. Through us he has sent
to your beatitude a letter appropriate for the assembly of the holy fathers: receive it and order it to be read.” Acts
I.83, vol.1:147-8.
72 Dioscorus declared, “Let the letter to this holy and ecumenical council from our most sacred brother and fellow

Bishop Leo be received.” Ibid., I.84, vol.1:148.

73 Ibid., I.87-106, vol.1:148-50.
74 Ibid., I.962, vol.1:343-44.
75 Ibid., I.962, vol.1:344.
76 For further discussion on the death of Flavian, see Henry Chadwick, “The Exile and Death of Flavian of

Constantinople: A Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon,” Journal of Theological Studies 6: 17-34.

77 On the Alexandrian tradition, Jenkins asserts, “And just as Cyril had accompanied Theophilus to overthrow John

Chrysostom in 403, so Dioscorus had been present at the fall of Nestorius in 431. A rising yong cleric could have no
better form of on-the-job training than witnessing his mentor overthrow a patriarch.” Jenkins, 170.
78 The proceedings from the Council of Chalcedon include the first meeting of the synod of Ephesus (449), in which,

the bishops received Eutyches back into communion and deposed Flavian and Eutyches. The synod of Ephesus (449)
is disepered through the minutes of the first session of Chalcedon. See Acts of Chalcedon 1:68-1067.
79 Ibas of Edessa was condemend for corrupting the faith of Cyril and the Council of Ephesus (431). This accusation

first appears to have arisen amongst the populace back in his hometown of Edessa. Furthermore, Price recounts that

13
Theodosius II affirmed the decisions reached at Ephesus II. However, the western emperor,
Valentinian III, rejected the conciliar verdict of Ephesus II. Pope Leo famously derided the
Ephesus II as the “Robber’s Synod (Latroncinium).”80 Contemporary assessments of Ephesus II
match Leo’s harsh rebuke. McGuckin describes Dioscorus’ actions as “both politically and
theologically inept.”81 Furthermore, he adds that, “His blatant siding with Eutyches, and his
disregard of the legitimate concerns of Syria and Rome, when added to his high-handed dealings
at the synod of 449, were significant in pushing away chances at reconciliation.”82 Need describes
Ephesus II an “utterly chaotic and unfortunate event.”83 Jenkins dubs it the “Gangster Synod.”84
There was no possible way that Ephesus II would be counted as one of the ecumenical councils.
It was too one-sided and over-determined of an affair to ever garner universal approval. The
council is rarely recoded in the annals of church history. It is a ghost council.
The political advantage would shift to the Roman see on 28 July 450. On this fateful
summer day, Emperor Theodosius II suffered fatal injuries in a horse accident. Soon after the
demise of Theodosius II, Empress Pulcheria (399-453) married General Marcian in order to
forge a strong political relationship.85 By October of 451, the Late Roman Empire was under
intense military threats, thus the fortification of a strong imperial marriage was a necessary
maneuver.86 Pulcheria was a trusted ally of Pope Leo, therefore imperial favor now fell to the
papacy. In demonstrations of vengeful strength, Pulcheria reclaimed control of Constantinople
after the death of Theodosius II.87 She executed Chrysaphius, then by imperial decree she

Theodoret of Cyrrhus and other “Syrian bishops sympathetic to Nestorius, including their superior Bishop Domnus
of Antioch,” were triumphed over at Ephesus II (449). Price notes our dependence on the Syriac Acts of the council
for this record. Price, “The Council of Chalcedon,” 71.
80 Leo, ep. 95. Epistula Leonis ad Pulcheriam augustam (20 July 451) (ACO II.4: 50-51).
81 McGuckin, “Christ in the Chalcedonian Definition,” 249-50.
82 Ibid., 250.
83 Need, 98.
84 On Ephesus II, Jenkins concludes, “For all the numbers and prestige of those attending, all the wieghty issues

discussed, Second Ephesus – the Gangster Synod – became The Council That Never Was.” Jenkins, 169.
85 Marcian was an Eastern Roman Emperor. In 450, he married Pulcheria and agreed she would keep her vow of

perpetual virginity. Pulcheria influenced Marcian’s decision to call for the Council of Chalcedon. For further
discussion, see Harry Rosenberg, “Marcian (ca. 392-457),” in EEC, 714-15.
86 Rome and Constantinople verged towards collapse under foreign invasions throughout the 440’s onwards. For a

valuable study on the decline of the Roman Empire, see Bryan Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of
Civilization (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
87 Regarding the influence of Pulcheria, Jenkins notes, “Although Pulcheria did not officially rule the Eastern

empire, she so influenced public policy that it certainly looked like she was in sole charge from 414 through 440. She
ruled, in fact, through her posiution as imperial Big Sister.” Jenkins, 118.

14
reversed the recent restoration of Eutyches, thereby leading to his final expulsion.88 Pulcheria
called for the restoration of those bishops who were disposed at Ephesus II.89 Prior to the
ascension of Marcian, Archbishop Anatolius of Constantinople and Bishop Maximus of Antioch
were willing to ally with Dioscorus. However, Anatolius and Maximus quickly switched
allegiances to the Roman see in accordance with the shifting sands of imperial policies. In step
with the leanings of Pulcheria, Anatolius and Maximus instructed their suffragan bishops to
notate their agreement with Leo’s Tome. In addition to affirming Leo’s Tome, Marcian planned to
convoke an ecumenical council to further ensure doctrinal agreement within the church. Leo did
not believe an ecumenical council was necessary as he was content to have the Tome received
within the canonical tradition, but Marcian wanted to ensure unity within the church and
possibly advance his own legacy as another Constantine.90 In an attempt to show continuity with
the First Ecumenical Council of 325, Marcian called for a council to be convened at Nicaea.
However, after a military campaign diverted his attention, Marcian reconsidered and opted for
the more convenient location of Chalcedon, a suburb of Constantinople, which housed the
sizable church of Saint Euphemia.

III. Christology of th Council of Chalcedon

Primary Sources of the Acts (Sessions) of Chalcedon
Eduard Schwartz’s Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum remains the standard edition for the
Greek and Latin versions of the Acts of Chalcedon. The Greek version of the Acts is located in
Schwartz’s Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II.1.91The Latin version of the Acts is in Acta Conciliorum
Oecumenicorum II.3.92 The Latin version of the Acts preserves the original Greek text to a larger
extent than the Greek version in Schwartz.
Translation of the Acts (Sessions) of Chalcedon

88 Eutyches fled into hiding after the ascencion of Marcian and Pulcheria. In the first session of Chalcedon,
Dioscorus was ready to condmen Eutcyhes if he held opinions in contradiction to the church. Acts I.168.
89 The official restortation of the bishops to the sees would be realized in the council. Pulcheria and Leo kept in close

correspondence with one another. For the letter from Pulcheria to the pope calling for the restoration of te bishops,
see Leo, ep. 77, in Price, Acts, vol. 1:93-4.
90 Emperor Marcian’s insistence on a new Defintiion may have been part of his ambition to be placed on par with

Constantine and the Nicene Creed.

91 Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II.1. ed. Eduard Schwartz, (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1933-5).
92 Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II.3. ed. Eduard Schwartz, (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1935-7).

15
 There have been a couple exceptional translations of portions or the entire Acts of
Chalcedon into French and Russian over the last century.93 Richard Price and Michael Gaddis
have recently published an outstanding English translation of the proceedings (i.e. Acts) of the
Council of Chalcedon. It is the authoritative translation for current and future generations of
historians. The following selections from the proceedings are borrowed from the groundbreaking
work of Price and Gaddis. Any minor changes have been duly noted, but in the main, their
translations of the original Greek text have been preserved, with some reliance, when necessary
upon the Latin edition.94 The numbering (and to a lesser extent) the ordering of the acts
(alternatively, known as the sessions) varies between the Greek and Latin editions. Technically,
there is a difference between acts and sessions, but for our purposes, these terms will be used
interchangeably.95 One issue that Price and Gaddis addressed was deciding the location of the
session on Canons 1-27. Another difficulty is that some acts were not numbered in the Greek and
Latin editions. Furthermore, some of the acts only appeared in either the Greek or Latin editions.
This assessment of the Acts of Chalcedon follows the numbering and ordering sequence established
by Price and Gaddis in their recent contribution.96 This numbering and ordering is similar to the
Latin edition.97

Session One: Rereading the Home Synod (448) & Ephesus II (449)
The first session of the Council of Chalcedon convened on 8 October 451 at the church
of St. Euphemia.98 The Acts recorded that 343 bishops and ecclesiastical leaders attended the first

93 For French translations of the Greek version of Sessions I to VI, see A.J. Festugière, Ephèse et Chalcédoine (Paris:
Beauchesne, 1982); Ibid., Actes du Concile de Chalcédoine: Sessions III-VI (Geneva: Patrick Cramer, 1983). For the entire
text of the Acts of Chalcedon in Russian translation, see volumes 2 and 3 in Deyaniya Vselenskikh Soborov (Kazan, 1908;
repr. Saint Petersberg, 1996).
94 Price and Gaddis explain that their translation follows the Greek text published in Eduard Schwartz, ACO II.1

(1933-35). They also advise that they employ the Latin text as a supplement for whole pages, words, or phrases,
when necessary. See Price, Acts, vol. 1: x.
95 Regarding the difference between the terms acts and sessions, Price and Gaddis explain, “Strictly, a distinction

should be drawn between the ‘acts’ of the council, of which several could be transacted in one day, and the ‘sessions’
of the council, each lasting one day: the Breviarium of Liberatus, composed in Carthage in the early 560s, lists and
numbers the sessions (sessiones , conventus or secretaria ) accordingly, and details the acts (actiones) each one
transacted. A different numeration for ‘sessions’ and for ‘acts’ would therefore be both logical and traditional; but it
would be confusing for the modern reader and is not adopted here.” Ibid., vol. 3: viii.
96 Price and Gaddis provide a valuable chart that denotes the variants in the numbering of the acts and sessions in

the following editions: Session in Liberatus; Act in Greek edition; Act in Latin edition; Gaddis and Price edition. For
the chart, see Price, Acts, vol. 3: viii.
97 Price notes that western scholars have largely followed the format of the Latin edition. Ibid., vol. 3: vii.
98 “In the consulship of our lord Marcian perpetual Augustus and the one to be designated, eight days before the

Ides of October, at Chalcedon.” Acts I.1, vol. 1:122. The protection of St. Euphemia was of importance, for she was

16
session. On behalf of the emperor, the magister militum, Anatolius, in cooperation with imperial
officials, chaired the proceedings.99 The record of the first session is long and burdensome,100 but
these minutes offer valuable insights into the three-year span from the Home Synod to
Chalcedon. The Roman legates opened up the session by demanding the expulsion of
Dioscorus,101 who attended the council with the support of his fellow bishops.102 When asked to
state charges against Dioscorus, the Roman legate Lucentius, asserted that he “presumed to hold
a council without the leave of the apostolic see, which has never been allowed and has never
been done.”103 Anatolius acquiesced to the demands of the Roman legates, thereby placing
Dioscorus on trial.104 At this point in the session, Eusebius of Dorylaeum (one of the bishops who
was condemned at Ephesus II),105 submitted the case against Dioscorus.106 In his petition, which
was read before the council fathers, Eusebius called for the recitation of the Acts of Ephesus II.107
Dioscorus also requested the reading of the Acts of Ephesus II, thus both parties believed their
vindication rested on the record of Ephesus II.108 The Acts were read before the assembly. The
reading of the Acts was used as evidence against Dioscorus, who was accused of unlawful
practices and the promulgation of illegitimate decrees. As the Acts were read aloud, Dioscorus

a martyr in the early fourth century, who was central to a “popular miraculous cult favored by the imperial family as
well as surrounding churches and cities.” Jenkins, 203.
99 “By order of our most divine and pious lord Marcian perpetual Augustus there assembled in the most holy church

of the holy martyr Euphemia, that is: the most magnificent and glorious Anatolius, magister militum, former concsul,
and patrician…” Acts I.2, vol. 1:122.
100 In the complete version of the first session (only availble in the Latin text), Price notes that the first session is

around forty percent of the entire acts of Chalcedon. Price, Acts , vol. 1:111.
101 “Paschasinus, the most devout bishop and guardian of the apostolic see, took his stand in the centre together with

his companions and said: ‘We have [at hand] instructions from the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the city of
Rome, the head of all the churches, in which he has thought it right to declare that Dioscorus should not take a seat
at the assembly, and that is he has the effrontery to attempt to do so, he should be expelled.” Acts I.5, vol. 1:129.
102 Ibid., I.5-12, vol.1:129-30.
103 Ibid., I.9, vol.1:129.
104 It may be argued that it was predetermined that Dioscorus would face a trial at Chalcedon. Here, the notion of

“acquiscence” is more in keeping with record keeping than perhaps what was actually transpiring in the moment.
105 A number of historians have characterized Eusebius as a passionate bishop. In his account, Davis asserts that

Eusebius’ “zeal made even fire seem cool.” L. Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, 173.
106 Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, decalred: “By the preservation of the masters of the world, order my petition to

be read, in accordance with the wishes of our most pious emperor. I have been wronged by Dioscorus; the faith has
been wronged; Bishop Flavian was murdered. He together with me was unjustly deposed by Dioscorus. Order my
petition to be read.” Acts I.14, vol. 1:130.
107 The Act reads, “Since his offences against the Christian faith and against us are far from trivial, we beg and

petition your authority to decree that the most devout Bishop Dioscorus must answer the charges we have brought
against him, with, of course, the reading before the holy council of the minutes of his proceedings against us…”
Ibid., I.16, vol. 1:132.
108 Dioscorus declared, “The most pious emperor ordered a council to be convened, and it convened according to

the divine will of our most pious emperor. Regarding the proceedings relating to Flavian, then bishop of the holy
church of Constantinople, minutes were taken at the holy council, and I ask that they be read.” Ibid., I.18, vol.1:132.

17
became increasingly alienated, to such an extent that even the Egyptian bishops shifted
allegiances towards the Roman see.109
In the midst of the preliminary instructions, the imperial officials welcomed Bishop
Theodoret of Cyrrhus,110 thereby leading to a frenzied debate between, which concluded with
the officials placing the bishop next to Eusebius as a fellow plaintiff (rather than with the
bishops).111 Cyril, John of Antioch, Proclus of Constantinople and Emperor Theodosius II were
now deceased, thus leaving Theodoret as the only survivor responsible for the Formula of Reunion.
Indeed, he may have authored the Formula, which caused him much trouble at Ephesus II.112
Dioscorus and his allies were convinced that Theodoret was a Nestorian. Dioscorus and other
bishops, who participated in Ephesus II, attempted to evade responsibility for the misguided
synod. Dioscorus argued that he acted in accordance with the other bishops, thus he should not
be scapegoated for the outcomes reached at Ephesus II.113 In response, other bishops asserted
they were compelled by threats of violence to support Dioscorus.114 However, later in the
proceedings, the bishops admitted that Ephesus II could not have occurred without their
participation, which was not entirely guided by the coercion of Dioscorus.115After much

109 Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, and other Palestinian bishops crossed over to the other side thus abandoning
Dioscorus. A roll call of bishops began to distance themselves from Dioscorus. After the council of Chalcedon, the
desserters of Disocorus returned to their bishop seats in Egypt as a despised group of disloyal churchmen. For the
account of those bishops who abandoned Dioscorus, see Ibid., I.284-98, vol. 1:188-90.
110 “The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the most devout Theodoret enter and take part in

the council, since the most holy Archbishop Leo has restored his see to him, and since the most divine and pious
emperor has decreed his attendance at the holy council.’” Ibid., I.26, vol.1:134.
111 The officials and senate said, “The most devout Bishop Theodoret, restored to his see by the most holy

archbishop of the renowned city of Rome, has now appeared in the role of accuser. Lest the hearing be disrupted, let
us conclude what we have initiated. The presence of the most devout Theodoret will be prejudicial to no one, since,
obviously enough, full right of speech is assured after this both for you and for him, if you should wish to raise any
matters in turn, even though we have a particular and oral witness to his orthodoxy in the most devout bishop of the
great city of Antioch.” Ibid., 1.35, vol.1:135.
112 Theodoret has been sugggested as the original author of the Formula on many occassions. Need states, “A form of

the words decided upon at Ephesus (and probably composed by Theodoret of Cyrus [sic] was sent to Cyril and
incorporated by him later into ‘Laetentur coeli,’ his letter to John.” Need, 94.
113 Dioscorus declared, “The most pious emperor ordered a council to be convened, and it convened according to

the divine will of our most pious emperor. Regarding the proceedings relating to Flavian, then bishop of the holy
church of Constantinople, minutes were taken at the holy council, and I ask that they be read.” Acts I.18, vol.1:132;
also, see I.53, vol.1:140.
114 The Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed, “No one concurred, force was used, force with blows. We

signed blank paper. We were threatened with deposition. We were threatened with exile. Soldiers with clubs and
swords stood by, and we took fright at the clubs and swords. We were intimidated into signing. Where there are
swords and clubs, what kind of council is it? This is why he had soldiers with him. Drive out the murderer. The
soldiers killed Flavian.” Ibid., I.54, vol. 1:140-41.
115 The Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed, “We all sinned, we all beg forgiveness.’ The most glorious

officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Yet you declared earlier that you were forced by violence and compulsion to

18
posturing, the reading of the Acts of Ephesus II commenced.116 As the Acts were being read aloud,
the council fathers announced their disapproval against the abuse of Flavian117 and the omission
of Leo’s Tome.118
After the reading of the Acts of Ephesus II, the proceedings from the Home Synod of 448
were recited before the congregation in order to examine the actions of Flavian of
Constantinople.119 In the midst of the reading, the presiding authorities sought acclamations in
support of Flavian.120 The majority of bishops (except the loyal Egyptian bishops),121 who
supported Dioscorus at Ephesus II, began to align themselves with Flavian.122 One by one the
bishops sought to excuse themselves “under the scornful eye and withering sarcasm of the
increasingly isolated Dioscorus.”123 By the practice of acclamation, the bishops approved of the
deposition of Dioscorus and his inner circle.124 At the end of the first session, the officials
condemned Dioscorus and five other bishops for their involvement at Ephesus II.125 Dioscorus
and his cohort were prohibited from attending more proceedings. The council fathers placed
Dioscorus under trial. The other five bishops were reinstated in the fourth session.

Call for a New Definition of the Faith

In session one, the council fathers shouted their approval when the Formula of Reunion was
read aloud. The bishop affirmed that the Formula as the faith of Cyril and Flavian.126 The
coalescence of the Church Fathers into a singular tradition was a common technique at
Chalcedon. In the second session (10 October), the bishops assumed they would be called upon

sign the deposition of Flavian of sacred memory on a blank sheet.’ The most devout Oriental bishops and those with
them exclaimed: ‘We all sinned, we all beg forgiveness.” Ibid., I.181-3, vol.1:161.
116 For the minutes of the Acts of Ephesus II, which are interspersed throughout the first sesssion, see Ibid., I.67-1067;

vol. 1:143-363.
117 “The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘If your teaching was so orthodox, why did you sign the

deposition of Flavian of sacred memory?’” Ibid., I.177, vol 1:161.

118 Ibid., I.87-91, vol. 1:148.
119 For the minutes from the Acts of the Home Synod, which are intersperesed throughout the first session, see Ibid.,

I.223-552, vol. 1:168-229.

120 Ibid., I.272-80, vol. 1:187-88.
121 Four Egyptian bishops (i.e., Athanasius of Busiris of Tripolis; Auxonius of Sebennytus; Nestorius of Phlabonis;

Macarius of Cabasa) acclaimed their approval of Flavian. Ibid., I.293-96, vol. 1:189.
122 Ibid., I.284-98, vol. 1:188-90.
123 Davis, 181.
124 Acts I.1068-71, vol. 1:364.
125 The Oriental bishops and those with them declared, “Many years to the senate! Holy God, Holy Almighty, Holy

Immortal, have mercy on us. Many years to the emperors! The impious are always routed; Christ has deposed
Dioscorus. Christ has deposed the murderer. This is a just sentence. This is a just council. {This is a holy council.}
The senate is just, {the council is just}. God has avenged the martyrs.” Ibid., I.1071, vol. 1:364.
126 Ibid., I.246-55, vol.1:178-83.

19
to affirm Leo’s Tome in order to demonstrate doctrinal agreement. The affirmation of Leo’s Tome
fits well with the totalizing discourse of Chalcedon. However, the presiding officials requested the
unexpected, by demanding a new statement of Christian faith.127 The council fathers believed
the Nicene Creed was a sufficient statement of the orthodox faith.128 In the opening of the second
session, the bishops asserted they would not produce another exposition of the faith as the canon
(i.e. Canon 7 of Ephesus [431]) forbids the making of another exposition.129 By the middle of the
fifth century, the majority of bishops affirmed the Nicene Creed; however, many council fathers
had no knowledge of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381). The majority of bishops at
Ephesus (431) were unacquainted with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. This creed was a
revised version of the Nicene Creed, which emerged between the Constantinople (381) and
Chalcedon (451). At the end of session one, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was submitted
alongside the Nicene Creed.130 Diogenes of Cyzicus was the only council father to demonstrate
exceptional familiarity with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. At the conclusion of the first
session, Diogenes condemned Eutyches because of his omission of certain parts of the Creed of
381.131 Thus, the tradition was being expanded to include the Creed of 381, but immediately
following Diogenes’ judgement against Eutyches, the Egyptian contingency referenced Canon 7

127 The officials and senate declared, “If it seems good to your devoutness, let the most sacred patriarchs of each
diocese select, each one, one or two [bishops] from their own diocese, come together, deliberate in common about
the faith, and then make their decisions known to all, so that, if all are in accord, every dispute may be resolved,
which is what we wish, and if some prove to be of a contrary opinion, which we do not expect, this may reveal their
opinions as well.” Ibid., II.6, vol. 2:11.
128 “When this had accordingly been read, the holy council laid down that no one is allowed to produce or write or

compose another creed beside the one laid down with the aid of the Holy Spirit by the holy fathers who assembled at
Nicaea; and that as regards those who dare to compose another creed, or produce or present it to those who wish to
turn to the knowledge of the truth whether from paganism or Judaism or any form of heresy, they, if they are bishops
or clerics, are to be expelled, the bishops from episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy, while if they are laymen
they are to be anathematized.” Ibid., I.943, vol. 1:323.
129 The bishops exclaimed, “We will not produce a written exposition. There is a canon which declares that what has

already been expounded is sufficient. The canon forbids the making of another exposition. Let the [will] of the
fathers prevail.” Ibid., II.7, vol. 2:11.
130 The officials and senate said: “Let each of the most devout bishops of the present holy council set out in writing

what he believes, without any anxiety and with the fear of God before his eyes, recognizing that the beliefs of our
most divine and pious master [Marcian] accord with the creed of the 318 holy fathers at Nicaea and the creed of the
150 fathers after that, with the canonical letters and expositions of the holy fathers Gregory, Basil, Hilary, Athanasius
and Ambrose, and with the two canonical letters of Cyril which were approved and published at the first Council of
Ephesus, and does not depart from their faith in any way. In addition it is a familiar fact that the most devout Leo
archbishop of Senior Rome sent a letter to Flavian of devout memory concerning the dispute that Eutyches
impiously stirred up in opposition to the catholic religion.” Ibid., I.107, vol. 1:363-4.
131 In recalling the condemnation of Eutyches in 448, Diogenes of Cyzicus declared, “He [Eutyches] adduced the

council of the holy fathers at Nicaea deceptively, since additions were made to it by the holy fathers on account of
the evil opinions of Apollinarius, Valentinus, Macedonius and those like them, and there were added to the creed of
the holy fathers the words ‘He came down and was enfleshed from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin.’ This
Eutyches omitted, as an Apollinarian.’” Ibid., I.160, vol. 1:157-8.

20
of Ephesus.132 Furthermore, during session two of Chalcedon, when the imperial authorities
demanded a new definition of the Christian faith, the bishops once again appealed to Canon
7.133 The constant appeals to Canon 7 demonstrate that no one wanted to devise a new
Definition of the faith. It was, so it readily appears, purely the ambitions of Marcian that led to
the promulgation of the Chalcedonian Definition. Following in the footsteps of Constantine and
the Nicene Creed, Marcian sought to establish his own legacy as defender of the Christian
tradition through establishing once and for all the definitive settlement of the universal faith.

Session Two: Formation of a New Christological Definition of Faith

In response to the immense imperial demands for a new definition of the faith,134 the
council fathers first turned to the established tradition. The Creed of Nicaea was cited before the
congregation.135 After the reading of the Nicene Creed, the bishops declared that this is the
orthodox faith, which they all believe in, which was taught by Cyril and Leo.136 Next, the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was recited. The bishops offered a far more general
affirmation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed than that which was given after the Nicene
Creed. After the recitation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the bishops declared, “This
is the faith of all. This is the faith of the orthodox. We all believe accordingly.”137 Not a single
bishop referred to it as the creed of their baptism or of Cyril, which were the acclamations given
after the reading of the Nicene Creed.138 There is no explicit rejection of the Creed of 381, but
the objections may have been omitted from the record.139 Even as the Egyptian bishops
remained steadfast in bypassing the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the majority of bishops

132 “The most devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘No one admits any addition or subtraction.
Confirm the work of Nicaea; the orthodox emperor has commanded this.’” Ibid., I.161, vol. 1:158.
133 For the bishops constant referencing of Canon 7 of Ephesus, see Ibid., II.3-7, vol. 2:10-11.
134 Regarding the imperial demands for a new definition, Grillmeier rightly concludes, “It was only under constant

pressure from the emperor Marcian that the Fathers of Chalcedon agreed to draw up a new formula of belief.”
Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition vol. 1, 543.
135 Acts II.11, vol. 2:12.
136 The bishops exclaimed, “This is the faith of the orthodox. This we all believe. In this we were baptized, in this we

baptize. The blessed Cyril taught accordingly. This is the true faith. This is the holy faith. This is the eternal faith.
Into this we were baptized, into this we baptize. We all believe accordingly. Pope Leo believes accordingly. Cyril
believed accordingly. Pope Leo expounded accordingly.” Ibid., II.12, vol. 2:12.
137 Ibid., II.15, vol. 2:15.
138 Gwynn, 17.
139 In assessing the lack of reception of Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed at Chalcedon, Gwynn asserts, “One might

legitimately wonder whether other bishops shared such concerns or whether there were at some stage during the
council any explicit objections to the introduction of the apparently unknown creed of 381 into the debate. If there
were, however, those objections have disappeared from our official record.” Gwynn, 18.

21
affirmed it as an addition to the Nicene Creed. The acclamation of the Creed of 381 raised the
Council of Constantinople to the status of an ecumenical council.140 At this point, the
archdeacon Aetius offered to read Cyril’s letter to Nestorius (i.e. Second Letter to Nestorius) and his
Letter to John of Antioch. After the officials called for the reading of these two letters,141 Aetius read
Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius,142 followed by the recitation of his Letter to John of Antioch.143
Following the reading of Cyril’s two letters, the bishops declared that Pope Leo believes in
accordance with Cyril.144 Next, the officials instructed that Leo’s Tome should be read.145 The
secretary Veronicianus read Leo’s Tome (i.e., Leo’s Letter to Flavian) in its entirety.146

Christological Statement: Leo’s Letter to Flavian (a.k.a. Leo’s Tome)

Leo’s Letter to Flavian, popularly known as Leo’s Tome, was composed on 13 June 449.147
The Tome is a lengthy exposition of dual nature Christology. Leo entrusted his Tome over to his
papal legates, who were ordered to present it before the bishops at Ephesus II. Dioscorus
received the Tome without reading it or including it in the archives. Two years later, at
Chalcedon, the Tome was received into the canonical tradition. In the Tome, Leo maintained the
two natures in Jesus Christ, but he always coupled the dual nature Christology with the unity of
the true and perfect man-God. In regards to the economy of salvation, which is always grounded
in the redemptive work of the cross, Leo maintains a distinction and unity with the two natures.
He declares:
With, therefore, the distinctive character of each nature being preserved and coming together
into one person, lowliness was assumed by divinity, impotence by power, mortality by
immortality; and for the payment of the debt owed by our nature the divine nature was united to
the passible nature, so that – this fitting our cure – one and the same, being ‘the mediator

140 Davis, 185.
141 Acts II.17, vol. 2:13.
142 Ibid., II.18, vol. 2:13. In the Latin version of the Acts of Chalcedon, the full text of Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius is

extant, whereas the Greek version only offers the first few lines of the letter.
143 Ibid., II.19, vol. 2:14. In the Latin version of the Acts of Chalcedon, the full text of Cyril’s Letter to John of Antioch is

extant, whereas the Greek version has an abridged version.

144 After the reading of Leo’s Tome, the bishops declared, “We all believe accordingly. Pope Leo believes accordingly.

Anathema to him who divides and him who confuses! This is the faith of Archbishop Leo. Leo believes accordingly.
Leo and Anatolius believe accordingly. We all believe accordingly. As Cyril so we believe. Eternal is the memory of
Cyril. As is contained in the letters of Cyril, so we hold. We have believed accordingly, and we believe accordingly.
Archbishop Leo thinks, believes and wrote accordingly.” Acts of Chalcedon II.20, vol. 2:14.
145 “The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the letter of the most religious Leo, archbishop of the

imperial and senior Rome, be read.’” Acts II.21, vol. 2:14.

146 For Leo’s Letter to Flavian (i.e., Leo’s Tome), see Ibid., II.21-22, vol. 2:14-24.
147 One of Leo’s secretaries was largely responsible for drafting the Tome, which relied heavily upon predecessors

such as Augustine of Hippo. However, what is of importance, is Leo’s strong suppor of the Tome. Jenkins,185.

22
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus’, would be able to die in respect of the one and
would not be able to expire in respect of the other. Therefore in the pure and perfect nature of
true man true God was born, complete in what is his own and complete in what is ours.148

In the Tome, Leo asserts, “the impassible God did not disdain being a passible man, nor the
immortal one submit to the laws of death.”149 Additionally, he states, “For each form (μορφή)
performs what is proper to it in communion (κοινωνία) with the other, the Word achieving what
is the Word’s, while the body accomplishes what is the body’s; the one shines with miracles, while
the other has succumbed to outrages (ὕβρις).”150 The ambiguity of the above assertion is open to
many interpretations. Leo may be arguing that the “forms” of God and humanity instead of the
“personal subjects” of the Word of God and Christ participate in miracles and outrages. The
distinct operations and effects of the Word of God and the human nature (i.e., flesh) could be
interpreted as an affront to Cyril’s Fourth Anathema.151 In part, the Cyrillian faction (perhaps
naively but nonetheless) accepted Leo’s Tome because they interpreted it to stand in agreement
with Cyril, but this acceptance of the Tome came with reservations. Leo consistently assigns
human weakness to human nature within the one Christ; hunger, thirst and weariness belong to
the human nature, whereas the feeding of five thousand men with five loaves of bread, the
walking on water and the rebuking of the swell, all belong to the divine nature.152 Following a
consistent emphasis on the two natures in Christ, Leo asserts, “For although indeed in the Lord
Jesus Christ there is one person of God and man, nevertheless that because of which the outrage
is common in both is one thing and that because of which the glory is common is another.” With
this declaration, Leo affirms that the Incarnate Word shares in human weakness and divine
glory, thus there is no clear separation of the two natures as witnessed within Nestorianism. Leo
explains as follows:
Because, then, of this union of person that needs to be conceived in each nature we also
acknowledge that the Son of man came down from heaven, when the Son of God assumed the
body from the Virgin from whom he was born, and again the Son of God is said to have been
crucified and buried, when he endured these things not in the Godhead itself in which he is only-
begotten, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of his human

148 Acts II.22, vol. 2:17-18.
149 Ibid, II.22, vol. 2:19.
150 Ibid.
151 “If anyone interprets the sayings in the Gospels and apostolic writings, or things said about Christ by the saints, or

the things he says about himself, as referring to two prosopa or hypostases, attributing some of them to a man
conceived of as separate from the Word of God, and attributing others (as divine) exclusively to the Word of God the
Father, let him be anathema.” Cyril, Twelve Chapters (ACO 1.1: 41), McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 274.
152 Acts of Chalcedon II.22, vol. 2:20.

23
nature.153

Leo affirms the crucifixion of the Son of God. In the next section of the Tome, Leo rebukes
Eutyches, who denied the human nature of the only-begotten God.154 He argues that Eutyches’
Christology, which denies the human nature in Christ Jesus, has negative consequences upon the
mystery of salvation. Leo makes the following assertion:
What is it to divide Christ if not to sever his human nature from him and to try to make vain by
shameless fictions the mystery through which alone we are saved? He who has created obscurity
around the nature of the body of Christ is necessarily deranged with the same blindness in
relation to his passion as well. For if he does not think the cross of the Lord to be false and is in
no doubt that the passion he underwent for the salvation of the world was real, let him then
acknowledge the flesh of the one whose death he acknowledges, and let him not deny that the
one who he acknowledges was passible was a man of our flesh, since the denial of the true body is
a denial also of the body’s suffering. If therefore he accepts the faith of Christians and does not
avert his hearing from the preaching of the gospel, let him consider which nature it was that,
pierced by the nails, hung on the wood of the cross; and when the side of the one fixed to the
cross was opened by the spear of the soldier, let him reflect whence the blood and water flowed
so that the church of God might be watered both by the bath [of baptism] and by the cup.155

Leo’s insistence on the dual natures in Christ affirms his interpretation of the Scriptures and the
Gospel proclamation of “Christ crucified” as the central event that ensures the salvation of
humanity. Jenkins has lauded the Tome as an impressive document because of its “comprehensive
gathering of biblical texts and a sound, clear logic running throughout.”156 In the above excerpt,
Leo connects the human body with the passion of Christ in order to argue that the human or
bodily nature is essential for rightly interpreting the salvific import of the crucifixion. The
climatic event of the Gospels is the crucifixion of Christ,157 which Leo surely recognizes when he
asserts that to deny the human flesh of Christ, which suffered on the cross, is to deviate from the
truth of the Gospel. If Eutyches truly wishes to affirm the Gospel of Christ, then, Leo admonishes
the archimandrite to consider what nature (i.e., the human or divine) was “pierced by the nails”
and “hung on the cross.” Leo’s affirmation of Christ suffering in his human nature resonates with
Cyril’s assertion that the Word of God suffers in the flesh.

153 Ibid., II.22, vol. 2:20-21.
154 Ibid., II.22, vol. 2:22.
155 Ibid.
156 Jenkins, 186.
157 The resurrection of Christ is another climatic event within the Gospels. However, the passion and crucificion of

Christ is the most important moment in the salvation story.

24
Cyril and Leo: Fathers of Chalcedonian Christology
In response to Leo’s Tome, the bishops at Chalcedon declared that Peter and the apostles
taught accordingly to Leo; furthermore, they proclaimed that Leo and Cyril taught the same
thing.158 This was the common refrain of the bishops, “Leo and Cyril taught the same thing.”
Leo and Cyril obviously did not teach the same thing at every point in their Christological
writings. Leo’s dual nature Christology and Cyril’s miaphysite Christology share some differences
and similarities, which emerge throughout the sessions of Chalcedon. Cyril believed that the
operations of Christ, both the human and divine, exists within the one Word of God. In contrast
to Cyril’s single nature Christology, which asserts all actions are grounded in the one divine-
human Logos, Leo contends that the outward actions correspond to the two natures in Christ
Jesus.159 There are obvious differences between Cyril and Leo; however, the two Church Fathers
shared commonalities as well. Cyril and Leo believed that Christ Jesus, suffering in the flesh at
the cross, stands at the center of the Gospel proclamation. Cyril and Leo both assert that
suffering in the flesh is essential for the economy of salvation.
Whereas the majority of council fathers received Leo’s Tome as part of the canonical
tradition, the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops raised objections. The Illyrian and Palestinian
bishops challenged Leo’s statement, “For the payment of the debt owed by our nature divine
nature was united to the passible nature, so that – this fitting our cure – one and the same, being
the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, would be able to die in respect of the
one and would not be able to expire in respect of the other.”160 In this passage, Leo affirms the
unity of the human and divine nature in Christ, then asserts he suffered and died only in the
human nature. The Illyrian and Palestinian bishops questioned the above passage. The specific
complaints are not provided within the Acts, but their objections were probably similar to the

158 After the recitation of Leo’s Tome, the bishops exclaimed: “This is the faith of the fathers. This is the faith of the
apostles. We all believe accordingly. We orthodox believe accordingly. Anathema to him who does not believe
accordingly! Peter has uttered this through Leo. The apostles taught accordingly. Leo taught piously and truly. Cyril
taught accordingly. Eternal is the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same. Leo and Cyril taught
accordingly. Anathema to him who does not believe accordingly! This is the true faith. We orthodox think
accordingly. This is the faith of the fathers. Why was this not read out at Ephesus? Dioscorus concealed it.” Acts
II.23, vol. 2:24-25.
159 In his assessment of Leo’s Christolgoy, Price asserts, “Following Augustine, Leo stressed the mediatorship of

Christ, as God and man: only as man could he offer the supreme sacrifice, and this required human free will and a
human nature that was not merely passive under the direction of the Word of God that assumed it, but possessed its
own spontaneity.” Price, Acts, vol. 2.25, fn. 79.
160 Acts II.24, vol. 2:25.

25
complaints of Timothy Aelurus,161 who declared, “Notice how again he teaches similar things to
Nestorius when he says he can die in one person and not expire in one, calling the mortal and
immortal two different things.”162 Timothy’s objection is not preserved in the Acts, but his
assertion underlines the concerns of the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops, who detected a
Nestorian duality within Leo’s Tome. Their fears are not without any warrant, after all, after
reading Leo’s Tome, Nestorius gave thanks to God that the “Church of Rome was confessing
correctly and without fault, although they were otherwise disposed towards me myself.”163 The
two-nature Christology of Leo’s Tome was applauded by Nestorius, which in itself, validates the
concerns voiced by many bishops who believed the Definition was far too Antiochene in its
theology and language.
Following the recitation of Leo’s Tome, Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople, read a
section from Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius, “‘Since again his own body by the grace of God
tasted death on behalf of everyone, as the apostle says, he himself is said to have suffered death
on our behalf, not as though he entered into the experience of death in regard to his own nature
(for to say or think that would be lunacy) but because, as I have just said, his own flesh tasted
death.”164 In both of the above excerpts, from Leo’s Tome and Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius,
there is emphasis on the suffering of Christ in the flesh, which does not touch the divine nature,
thus assuring divine impassibility. Aetius read from Cyril (after the objections of the Illyrian and
Palestinians) in order to demonstrate the compatibility between the Church Fathers of
Chalcedon. Leo and Cyril’s statements on the suffering Christ are placed together in order to
establish a singular tradition. Following the readings of Cyril and Leo, the bishops declared,
“This is the faith of Archbishop Leo…We all believe accordingly. As Cyril so we believe. Eternal
is the memory of Cyril. As is contained in the letters of Cyril so we hold.”165 In the second
session, when certain bishops (who previously sided with Dioscorus) objected against Leo’s

161 Timothy Aelerus was a monophysite patriarch of Alexandria from 457-60 and 475-77. Timothy, known as “the
Cat” due to his diminutive stature, led the Monophysite oppposition against Chalcedon (451). However, Timothy
would later come to side with Cyril and Severus (against Eutyches) in affirming that the body of Christ is the same
substance of other human bodies. See Everett Ferguson, “Timothy Aelurus (d. 477),” in EEC, 1133.
162 R.Y. Ebied and L.R. Wickham, “Timothy Aelurus: Against the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon,” in After

Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History, ed. C. Laga et al. (Leuven: Department Orientalistiek, 1985), 147.
163 Quoted from Nestorius, Bazaar of Heracleides, trans. G.R. Driver and Leonard Hodgson (Eugene: Wipf and Stock,

2002 [previously published by Oxford University Press, 1935]), 340.

164 Acts II.24, vol. 2:25.
165 Ibid., II.20-21, vol. 2:14.

26
Tome,166 those who sided with the Roman cause referenced select quotations from Cyril that
stood in agreement with Leo. The acceptance of Leo’s Tome and Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius
was a foreseeable outcome. In May of 450, Leo sent a decretal to Ravenius of Arles, in which he
included a florilegium containing excerpts from Cyril’s writings.167 Furthermore, in 450, Leo’s
Tome and Cyril’s letter to Nestorius were sent together in a correspondence that travelled from
Gaul to Spain.168 One year prior to Chalcedon, Leo’s Tome and Cyril’s writings were transmitted
throughout the western epistolary networks as a canonical collection of writings.169 Prior to
Chalcedon, there was already an emergent tradition in place, which placed Leo and Cyril side by
side as part of a singular totalizing discourse.
Next, the Archdeacon of Constantinople, Aetius, read from Cyril’s Letter to Acacius, which
declares, “Some of the sayings are particularly fitting to God, some again are particularly fitting
to man, while others occupy a middle position, revealing the Son of God as God and man
simultaneously and at the same time.”170 In the context of the Letter to Acacius (bishop of Beroea),
Cyril was attempting to explain his own position in relation to the Formula of Reunion. This is the
moderate Cyril, who was being conciliatory in an attempt at rapprochement with John of
Antioch. The above excerpt from Cyril’s Letter to Acacius stands in contrast with his Twelve
Anathemas, which states, “If anyone interprets the sayings in the Gospels and apostolic writings, or
the things said about Christ by the saints, or the things he says about himself, as referring to two
prosopa or hypostases, attributing some of them to a man conceived of as separate from the
Word of God, and attributing others (as divine) exclusively to the Word of God th Father, let him
be anathema.”171 The council officials tasked the bishops with establishing an integrative

166 Ibid., II.24-6, vol. 2:25-6.
167 “Hoc dilectioni tuae specialiter delegantes, ut sollicitudine vigilantiae tuae epistola nostra, quam ad Orientem pro
fidei defensionem direximus, vel sanctae memoriae Cyrilli, quae nostris sensibu tota concordat, universis fratribus
innotescat: ut certiores effecti contra eos qui incarnationem Domini pravis persuasionibus aestimant temerandam,
spirituali se virtute praemuniant.” Leo, Ep. 67 (Ad Ravennium Arelatensem Episcopum) (PL 54: 886A-887A). For Letter 67
in its entirety, see PL 54: 886A-887A. PL = Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, J.P. Migne (ed.) (Paris, 1844-64).
168 See Chronicle of Idazius, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi, vol.11:25.
169 Leo sent his and Cyril’s writings to Eastern dignitaries. Leo honored Cyril in “sacred memory” throughout his

writings. In Letter 70, Leo stated, “Simplex enim est absolutumque quod posco, ut remoto longarum disputationum
labore, sanctae memoriae Cyrilli Alexandrini episcopi epistolae, quam ipse ad Nestorium miserat, acquiescat.” Leo,
ep. 70 (Ad Pulcheriam Augustam) (PL 54: 893B-894A). Furthermore, in Letter 71, Leo mentions his sending of “ paternal
authorities (paternarum auctoritatum)” to the Eastern leaders. The footnote clarifies that these authorities are the
holy fathers (both Greek and Latin) testimony on the Incarnation of Christ. Leo, Ep. 71 (Ad Archimandritas
Constantinopolitanos) (PL 54: 896A; also, see fn. k). Also, see Leo, Ep. 88 (Ad Paschisnum Episcopum Lylibaetenum) (PL 54:
928B).
170 Acts II.25, vol. 2:26.
171 McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 274.

27
tradition, which meant they privileged a moderate Cyril, who would more easily fit within the
tradition of the church. In addition to their concerns regarding the differences between Cyril and
Leo on divine suffering, the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops objected to the part within Leo’s
Tome that asserts, “Although indeed in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one person of God and man,
nevertheless that because of which the outrage is common in both is one thing and that because
of which the glory is common is another, for he has from us the humanity that is less than the
Father, and he has from the Father the Godhead that is equal with the Father.”172 The
Miaphysite party frequently asserted that this part of Leo’s Tome smacked of Nestorianism.173 In
response to the Illyrian and Palestinians, Theodoret of Cyrrhus asserted that Cyril said a similar
statement in the Scholia de incarnatione, where he declares, “He became man without shedding
what was his own, for he remained what he was; he is certainly conceived as one dwelling in
another, that is, the divine nature in what is human.”174 This contestation between Theodoret
and the Illyrian-Palestinian bishops illustrates that the creation of a totalizing tradition was an
ongoing struggle throughout the Acts of Chalcedon. Tradition is never given intact as a whole entity,
rather it is a collaborative forging together of the collective parts of the past through the praxis of
reception and interpretation. At this point in the session, the officials asked the bishops if they
had more objections, in turn, then they responded, “No one has any objections.”175 Leo and
Cyril had different Christologies, which enjoyed distinct followings at Chalcedon; yet, in the
midst of difference, under imperial mandate, the bishops coalesced these two Church Fathers
into a singular tradition.
After the bishops affirmed that Cyril and Leo belonged to the same tradition, Atticus of
Nicopolis declared, “We should also be provided with the letter of the blessed Cyril written to
Nestorius in which he urged him to assent to the Twelve Chapters (i.e. Cyril’s Third Letter to
Nestorius), so that at the time of the examination we may be found well prepared.”176 Earlier in
the second session, Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius and his Letter to John of Antioch were received as
part of the canonical tradition.177 Furthermore, after Veronicianus read out Leo’s Tome, the

172 Acts II.26, vol. 2:26.
173 Timothy Aelurus argued that Leo’s statement was nonsensical because unity exists when he speaks of “one and
another.” Ebied and Wickham,152.
174 Acts II.26, vol. 2:26.
175 Ibid.
176 The only time that Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius is referenced throughout the sessions of Chalcedon was here in

the second session. Ibid., II.29, vol. 2:26-7.

177 Ibid., II.18-19, vol. 2:13-14.

28
bishops affirmed it as an orthodox profession of the Christian faith.178 The bishops contoured the
ecclesiastical tradition by placing the above writings within one corpus, where they were read as
a monolithic expression of the faith. Atticus’ appeal to Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius could be
interpreted as a challenge during the process of establishing a canonical tradition. Cyril’s Third
Letter to Nestorius had been consistently omitted from the tradition. The positive reception of
Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius would have augmented this tradition. If the council fathers received
the letter as part of the tradition, then it would have shaped the interpretation of Leo’s Tome and
the Formula of Reunion, because the canonical writings were read in collaboration with one
another.
Rather than outright rejecting Atticus’ request to read Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius, the
council fathers bypassed the thorny issue by calling for the restoration of the bishops who were
ousted alongside Dioscorus.179 Then, at this point, the officials adjourned the council for five days
to allow for ongoing deliberations.180 It is an abrupt moment within the conciliar proceedings,
perhaps, even a bit awkward, for no one wanted to explicitly reject Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius,
but at the same time, it had clearly fallen out of the ecclesiastical tradition. In summary, the
council fathers approved the following writings during session two of Chalcedon: the Nicene
Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius and Laetentur caeli
correspondence, penned to John of Antioch, which approved of the Formula of Reunion, and Leo’s
Tome. These canonical writings were affirmed as part of the creedal tradition, with the Nicene
Creed as the basis, then the succeeding writings as faithful interpretations of the one in the same
faith. It was assumed that each of the above writings taught the same thing; therefore, these texts
were read in an intertextual manner, where the canonical writings interpreted and supported one
another within an integrative framework.

Trial of Dioscorus

178 For Leo’s Tome (Leonis Epistula ad Flavianum; Ep. 11) (June 13, 449), see ACO II.2.1: 24-33; ACO IV.1: 167-72; in
the Greek , ACO II.1.1: 10-20. For an English translation of the Tome, see Acts of Chalcedon (vol. 2), 14-24 (hereafter,
Leo, Tome). Th Acts of Chalcedon English translation (i.e. trans. R. Price and M. Gaddis) is quoted in this study. This
particular translation is from the Greek rather than the Latin. Price and Gaddis explain, “We translate the Greek
version of the text…since this was the text read out at this point and because English translations of the Latin
original are legion.” Acts I.14, fn. 26.
179 Acts II.27, vol. 2:30. The council fathers were calling for the restoration of Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of

Caesarea in Cappadocia, Esuebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia in Isauria, whow all were
removed with Dioscorus in the first session.
180 Ibid., II.31, vol. 2:27. The council would resume discussions on the defintiion of faith in the fourth session, which

took place seven days later, on 17 October 451.

29
 At the conclusion of the second session, it was clear that there was an impasse between
the allies and opponents of Dioscorus.181 The third session (13 October 451) was devoted to
reaching a verdict on Dioscorus. Eusebius, the bishop of Dorylaeum (Phrygia), was the zealous
lead prosecutor during the trial of Dioscorus. Four Egyptian plaintiffs were brought forth for
their testimony before the council fathers. Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, a high-ranking
confidant of Leo’s, chaired the third session.182 The imperial representatives did not attend the
trial, which may have been to demonstrate impartiality. Nearly half of the bishops decided to
abstain from the trial of Dioscorus. The nearly 200 church leaders in attendance condemned
Dioscorus,183 largely on account of his unwillingness to attend the trial after receiving three
requests to present himself before the council. Charges of heresy were levied against Dioscorus in
the first session, but the mainline attack was generally vague misconduct.184 The trial confirmed
the condemnation of Dioscorus that was first asserted in the first session. In step with legal
precedence, the council fathers summoned Dioscorus on three occasions during the session.
Dioscorus refused to show up, thus, the council fathers were justified to condemn him. The
major offense made against Dioscorus was a refusal to show up for his defense, thus implying
guilt by refusing to attend after a threefold summons. Dioscorus’ intransigence was clear grounds
for the guilty verdict. In addition, Paschasinus condemned Dioscorus for prematurely
rehabilitating Eutyches into communion with the church. Paschasinus also rebuked him for
excommunicating Leo and censuring the Tome. The council fathers denounced his unfair

181 In his assessement of the concialiar proceedings, Price asserts, “Quite apart from the continued presence at the
council of a small but vocal minority of bishops, largely from Illyricum and Palestine, who boldly opposed the
ecclesiastical policy of the government, we may presume that not only the six bishops (all metropolitans) who had
been deposed at the first session but virtually all their suffragans were now absenting themselves from the meetings.”
R. Price, “The Council of Chacledon,” 76.
182 Paschasinus, the bishop of Lilybaeum, who represented Leo, declared in Latin: “It is well known to this God-

beloved council that a divine letter was sent to the blessed and apostolic Pope Leo summoning him to the holy
council. But since neither the custom of antiquity nor the necessities of the general time seemed to allow this, he has
charged our littleness to preside over this holy council in his stead. It is therefore necessary that whatever is brought
forward should be examined by our sentence. Therefore let the plaint that has now been presented by our most
God-beloved brother and fellow-bishop Eusebius be received by the most God-beloved archdeacon and
primicerius{of notaries} and read.” Acts III.4, vol. 2:41.
183 For a discussion on the issues aurrounding the number of attendees at the third session, see Price, Acts II:35-7.
184 In step with the majority of bishops, Theodore, bishop of Tarsus, declared: “Dioscorus has deprived himself of

priestly dignity by the following offences: he illegally received into communion Eutyches, who had been condemned
by Flavian of holy memory; he has been accused of crimes of the utmost gravity; and he did not comply when
summoned by the holy and ecumenical council. He has therefore been justly condemned by the greatest sees – the
archbishops Leo and Anatolius of the most holy churches of Great Rome and New Rome. I too in agreement with
them pronounce my sentence, adjudging him deprived of all pontifical ministry.” Acts III.96.13, vol. 2:72.

30
judgment against Flavian,185 harsh actions towards Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and his restating of
bishops who were previously condemned.
In addition to charges of misconduct, certain council fathers accused Dioscorus of
heresies. The bishops accused Dioscorus of Eutychianism,186 a defective view of the Trinity, and
they gestured towards other doctrinal aberrations. In their complaints against Dioscorus, bishops
and officials suggested that he held heretical views, but there was never uniformed and specific
accusations made against him.187 The council sent forth letters announcing the condemnation of
Dioscorus. In the letter sent to the Empress Pulcheria, the fathers provided general complaints
that were issued throughout the session, such as his refusal to read Leo’s Letter to Flavian, but the
overall tenure of complaints was general and innuendo like in their nature. The council fathers
criticized Dioscorus for being deceitful and thus deprived him of the dignity of the priesthood.188
These general complaints were normative throughout the trial of Dioscorus. Despite no specific
and consistent charges of heresy, once Paschasinus condemned Dioscorus, thereafter, the bishops
confirmed the verdict.189 There was little room for further debate once Paschisnus condemned
Dioscorus.

IV. Chalcedonian Definition: A Nuanced Christology

Fourth Session: Road to the Definition

185 Quintus, the bishop of Phocaea, declared, “When he murdered that most holy man Flavian, the guardian of
orthodoxy, he didn’t cite canons or have them read, nor did he follow any ecclesiastical procedure, but he deposed
him on his own authority. But now everything has been decided canonically, and he ought not to have recourse
again to a postponement.” Ibid., III.89, vol. 2:68.
186 In the opening of the third session, Aetius read out from a document by Eusebius of Dorylaeum, “We accused the

aforesaid Dioscorus of sharing the beliefs of the heretical Eutyches, who has been deposed and anathematized, and
of the fact that, wishing to confirm that man’s false beliefs at the council that recently took place in the metropolis of
Ephesus, he assembled a multitude of disorderly mobs, achieved domination through the wealth at his disposal, and
proceeded to damage the orthodox faith, so far as he could, to introduce the ferment of a new heresy into the
catholic church, and to strip me of priestly rank.” Ibid., III.5, vol. 2:42.
187 Certain Alexandrian deacons and presbyters submitted their formal complaints against Dioscorus. For example,

see the plaints of Theodore, deacon of Aleandria, see Ibid., III.47, vol. 2:51-3; Ischyrion, deacon of Alexandria, see
Ibid., III.51, vol. 2:53-7; Athanasius, presbyter of Alexandria, Ibid., III.57, vol. 2:58-61.
188 For the council’s letter to Augusta Pulcheria, provided at the end of the session, see Ibid., III.103, vol. 2:114-16.
189 The Roman representative’s announcement against Dioscorus was rather long. At the outset, Paschasinus, bishop

of Lilybaeum in Sicily and the other representatives of Leo, delcared, “Manifest are the deeds committed with
lawless audacity by Dioscorus bishop of the city of Alexandria against the discipline of the canons and the rules of the
church, as is shown by the past proceedings and the present pleas. To omit the greater part, Eutyches, who shared
his perfidy and had been lawfully condemned by his own bishop, Flavian of holy memory, he is known to have
received [into communion] even before sitting [in council] together with the bishops who had assembled in the city
of Ephesus.” Ibid., III.94.1-3, vol. 2:69.

31
 In the fourth session (17 October), the council fathers returned to questions regarding the
definition of faith. The council fathers examined Leo’s Tome. After some convincing of the
Illyrian and Palestinian bishops through diplomatic maneuvers over the prior week, the
conditions were now set for the approval of Leo’s Tome. In the first half of the session, the bishops
affirmed that Leo’s Tome stood in agreement with the Nicene Creed. The five bishops associated
with Dioscorus, who were dismissed during the first session, were now reinstated. The Egyptian
bishops and the Constantinopolitan monks protested during the proceedings of the fourth
session. The Egyptians were granted permission to be excluded from the proceedings until
another bishops replaced Dioscorus. The Constantinopolitan monks stood in outright opposition
throughout the conciliar proceedings. 190 The senate and officials instructed the bishops to
provide a statement of faith. On behalf of the Roman see, Paschasinus declared:
The holy and blessed council upholds and follows the rule of faith of the 318, issued by them at
Nicaea. In addition the council of 150 that assembled at Constantinople under Theodosius the
Great of blessed memory confirmed the same faith. The teaching of this creed, taught by the
man Cyril of blessed memory at Ephesus, when Nestorius was condemned for his craftiness, it
similarly embraces. Thirdly, the letter sent by that most blessed (and apostolic man) Leo,
archbishop of all the churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, reveals
what is the true faith. The holy council likewise holds fast to this faith and follows it, allowing
nothing further to be added or subtracted.191

The above declaration confirms that the Nicene Creed, Cyril’s teachings against Nestorius, and
Leo’s Letter to Flavian, are all essential to the Christian faith. Furthermore, Paschasinus asserts that
nothing else is needed beyond these articles of faith. In response to Paschasinus, the bishops
declared that they all believe accordingly and were baptized in this faith.192 In addition to the
group acclamation, the officials instructed each bishop to state if the Nicene Creed stood in
harmony with Leo.193 In quick succession, over 150 bishops declared that Leo’s Tome was in
agreement with the Nicene Creed and Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius.194 Following the
declarations of these bishops, the remainder of the council fathers expressed their approval

190 In his assessment of the fourth session, Price concludes, “The admission to the council chamber of critics of the
consensus around Leo’s Tome was a government decision presumably intended to provoke the bishops into issuing a
new definition of the faith; it illustrates how government could choose to manipulate a council rather than dictate to
it, as it did at the second and fifth sessions.” Price, Acts, 2.17.
191 Acts IV.6, vol. 2:127.
192 Ibid., IV.7, vol. 2:127.
193 Ibid., IV.8, vol. 2:127.
194 Ibid., IV.9.1-9.161, vol. 2:127-46.

32
through acclamation.195 The five restored bishops (who were initially deposed with Dioscorus)
signed the creed, then everyone acclaimed, “As Leo believes, so they believe.”196 There is no
record of a vigorous cross-examination of Leo’s Tome with Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius. It
appears that approval was reached through acclamation, but there is no evidence of a careful
study and comparison of these two texts.
After the acclamations for the Nicene Creed, Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius and Leo’s
Tome, the five bishops associated with Dioscorus were restored.197 The Egyptian bishops, who did
not attend the second and third sessions because of the disposition of Dioscorus, entered the
council and submitted their confession of faith, which was read out by the secretary
Constantine.198 The decree of the Egyptian bishops affirmed the Nicene Creed and three revered
Alexandrian bishops: Athanasius, Theophilus and Cyril. Furthermore, the Egyptians
anathematized Arius, Eunomius, Man and Nestorius. There was no mention of Leo’s Tome or the
heretical views of Eutyches. This lacuna within the confession was quickly noticed. Paschasinus
and a succession of bishops demanded the Egyptian bishops to sign off on Leo’s Tome and to
condemn Eutyches.199 In response to these demands, the Egyptians pleaded for mercy and
requested that they be allowed to abstain from offering another confession because they were
without their archbishop (i.e., Dioscorus) and other Egyptian bishops.200 After deliberations, the
Egyptian bishops were allowed to abstain from further discussion regarding the faith, but they
needed to provide assurance that they would remain in Chalcedon until the appointment of a
new archbishop of Alexandria.201
The presiding officials summoned the archimandrites and monks to appear before the
council.202 Upon the presentation of the monks’ petition,203 Veronicianus read the statement

195 Ibid., IV.11, vol. 2:146.
196 Ibid.
197 Ibid., IV.14-18, vol. 2:147.
198 Ibid., IV.25, vol. 2:148-9.
199 Ibid., IV.26-47, vol. 2:149-51.
200 In response to the demands for signing approval to Leo’s Tome, the Egyptian bishops declared, “We have already

in a petition made our faith plain and have been seen not to hold beliefs contrary to the catholic faith. But since the
most religious bishops of our diocese happen to be very many, while we, being easy to count, are not able to
represent them, we entreat your pre-eminence and this holy and great council to have pity on us and wait for our
archbishop, so that we may follow his decision according to ancient custom. But if we do anything without the
approval of our leader, the whole Egyptian diocese will attack us as acting uncanonically and as not keeping but
abolishing the ancient customs according to the canons. Have pity on our old age, have pity, and do not force us to
end our lives in exile.” Ibid., IV.48, vol. 2:151.
201 Ibid., IV.62, vol. 2:153.
202 Ibid., IV.63, vol. 2:153.

33
aloud.204 The monks called for the authorities to put an end to the factions by “the collecting of
signatures by force, and to the harassment of ourselves practised every day by clergy.”205 The
monks begged no one to suffer expulsion until just judgment. The council fathers attacked
Barsaumas who had “slaughtered the blessed Flavian.”206 The bishops demanded the expulsion
of the monk Barsaumas.207 Thereafter, a plaint of the archimandrites and monks was read out, in
which they called for the restoration of Dioscorus.208 In the middle of the statement, the council
fathers rejected this plea and anathematized Dioscorus.209 When the monks’ complaint
continued, they argued that nothing could be done with Dioscorus, and they attached the Nicene
Creed to their document in order to demonstrate their adherence to the orthodox faith.210 In
response to the obstinacy of the monks, Aetius, the archdeacon of Constantinople, declared:
If any presbyter or deacon, in contempt of his own bishop, has separated himself from the
church, held his own assemblies and set up his own sanctuary, and ignoring the summons of the
bishop refuses to heed or obey a first and second summons from him, he is to be completely
deposed, deprived of maintenance, and denied any recovery of his dignity. If he continues to
cause turmoil and disturbance to the church, he is to be chastised by the secular authorities as a
troublemaker.211

The bishops affirmed the canonical nature of the above declaration. Therefore, the
archimandrites and monks were compelled to give an account of their faith. The archimandrite
Carosus and the Syrian monk Barsaumas only confessed faith in the Nicene Creed.212 The
archimandrite Dorotheus and the monk Helpidius affirmed the Nicene Creed and the decree
against Nestorius at Ephesus.213 The Archdeacon Aetius pressed the monks to demonstrate
fidelity with the council fathers of Chalcedon; however, they were either unwilling or only
begrudgingly anathematized Eutyches.214 At the conclusion of the fourth session, Veronicianus
read the petition of Faustus and other archimandrites, in which they condemned Eutyches and

203 The following monks are named with the first petition: Carosus, Dorotheus, Helpidius, Photinus, Eutychius, and
the rest of the most devout monks mentioned above, and Barsaumas the monk, and also Calopodius the eunuch.
Ibid., IV.66, vol. 2:154.
204 Ibid., IV.76, vol. 2:155-6.
205 Ibid., IV.76, vol. 2:156.
206 Ibid., IV.77, vol. 2:156.
207 Ibid., IV.81, vol. 2:156.
208 Ibid., IV.83, vol. 2:157.
209 Ibid., IV.84, vol. 2:157.
210 Ibid., IV.88, vol. 2:158.
211 Ibid., IV.90, vol. 2:159.
212 Ibid., IV.93, 95, vol. 2:159.
213 Ibid., IV.94, 96, vol. 2:159.
214 Ibid., IV.100, 103, vol. 2:160.

34
sought support from the authorities in order to discipline those who refused to anathematize the
famous abbot.215 The monk Dorotheus would not sign the petition of Faustus; instead, he
declared that the Nicene Creed, in which he was baptized, was entirely sufficient.216
In an addition to affirming the Nicene Creed, Dorotheus added, “We profess that he who
suffered is [one] of the Trinity, and I do not acknowledge any other creed.”217 This is a
provocative creedal insertion from Dorotheus. Price described Dorotheus’ declaration a “rare
early anticipation of the famous theopaschite formula ‘One of the Trinity suffered,’ which was
debated in the period 518-34.”218 In addition to an anticipation of the Theopaschite Controversy
of 519, Dorotheus’ affirmation of “one of the Trinity suffered” aligns him with Cyril of
Alexandria’s theopaschism. In his twelve anathemas, Cyril declared the “Word of God suffered
in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh.”219 Dorotheus’ affirmation of
the phrase “One of the Trinity suffered” is simultaneously an anticipation of John Maxentius and
the Scythian monks and more so a defense of Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius and the Twelve
Anathemas.220 The officials and senate tried once more to coerce Dorotheus to sign the new
petition, but he refused, instead asserting that he abides in the Nicene Creed and the decrees of
Ephesus, and will affirm nothing else. The session concluded with the officials declaring that holy
council would issue a judgment. Prior to the historic fifth session of Chalcedon, there were mini-
sessions (which were unnumbered); one dealt with the defiant monks,221 another session
addressed an issue of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.222

215 Ibid., IV.105, vol. 2:161.
216 In response to the demands to assent to Faustus’ petetion, the monk Dorotheus asserted, “I was baptized in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, acknowledging Christ our Saviour, who came down and
was enfleshed from the holy Virgin, and became man and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate – bear with me
and if anything escapes me, correct me –, and we profess him to be of the Trinity. And our Lord himself, having
been spat upon, pierced and struck, said to his holy disciples when he rose from the dead, “Go and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Ibid., IV.108, vol.
2:162.
217 Ibid., IV.108, vol. 2:162.
218 Price, Acts, vol. 2:162, fn. 74.
219 Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas, in McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 275.
220 For a recent study on the Theospachite Controversy and the Scythian monks, see Matthew J. Pereira, Reception,

Interpretation and Doctrine in the Sixth Century: John Maxentius and the Scythian Monks, Ph.D. Dissertation, New York:
Columbia University, 2015.
221 This session addressed those defiant monks of the fourth session. For the session titled “Act concerning Carosus

and Dorotheus and those with them,” see Acts vol. 2:164-168.
222 One session addressed jurisdictional rights between the Photius, bishop of Tyre and Eustathiu, the bishop of

Berytus. Prior to his death, Theodosius II gave the see of Berytys the status of a metropolitan, but now this was being
disputed. For the session, “Act concerning Photius, bishop of Tyre and Eustathius bishop of Berytus,” Ibid., vol.
2:169-82.

35
Fifth Session: Chalcedonian Definition
In the fifth session of Chalcedon, the bishops declared that the Niceno-
Constantinopolitan Creed was the seal of the Nicene Creed (325), thereby reaffirming the
continuity between the councils.223 The bishops countered appeals to Canon seven of Ephesus
(431) by asserting continuity from Nicaea to Constantinople and then to Chalcedon (451). The
Chalcedonian Definition included the Nicene Creed (325) and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan
Creed (381) as constitutive preambles to the creed of 451.224 It is a mistake to minimize the
inclusion of the Creeds of 325 and 381 as non-essential, for they are integral parts of the
Chalcedonian Definition as a holistic document that reaffirms and advances tradition. In the fifth
session at Chalcedon, the bishops at once appealed to the tradition and reconstructed it, for they
appealed to Nicaea then linked it to the Definition of Chalcedon. This is the dance of
supersession, where the past is reaffirmed through elaboration, thus privileging the most recent
teaching while affirming the ancient tradition. After reciting the Chalcedonian Definition, the
bishops declared it as the one “wise and saving symbol,”225 here, it is in the singular, thus
suggesting it is the culmination of past creeds in this one sufficient definition of the faith.226
Anyone who strayed from the tradition was branded a heretic, but with that said, it needs to be
emphasized that the tradition was not completely settled prior to Chalcedon, rather in the
contestations, acclamations and adaptations of the council, the tradition was being shaped. In his
study on Chalcedon and the Christian tradition, Gwynn rightly asserts:
What was not yet agreed was just what that tradition should include. All recognized the authority
of the scriptures and of the Nicene Creed, and the writings of Cyril were also held in great
respect. But how the Nicene Creed should be interpreted remained a subject of debate, and so
too did the question of which of Cyril’s various writings were authoritative, a question that

223 The Archdeacon Aetius read, “This then we have done, having by a unanimous decree repelled the doctrines of
error, renewed the unerring faith of the fathers, proclaimed to all the creed of the 318, and endorsed as akin the
fathers who received this compendium of piety, that is, the 150 who subsequently assembled at great Constantinople
and set their seal on the same faith. Upholding also on our part the order and all the decrees on the faith of the holy
council that formerly took place at Ephesus, of whom the leaders were the most holy in memory Celestine of Rome
and Cyril of Alexandria, we decree the preeminence of the exposition of the correct and irreproachable faith by the
318 holy and blessed fathers who convened at Nicaea under the then emperor Constantine of pious memory, and
also the validity of the definition of the 150 holy fathers at Constantinople for the uprooting of the heresies which
had then sprung up and for the confirming of our same catholic and apostolic faith.” Ibid., V.31, vol. 2:201.
224 For the “Symbol of the 318 fathers at Nicaea,” and “The same of the 150 holy fathers who assemnbled at

Constantinople,” see Ibid., V.32-33, vol. 2:202-3.

225 Ibid., V.34, vol. 2:203.
226 Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to the Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition (New

Have: Yale University Press, 2003), 14.

36
particularly revolved around the status of his Third Letter to Nestorius and the Twelve
Anathemas.227

The official approval of the Chalcedonian Definition occurred in the fifth session on 22 October
451. The session commenced with the review of the draft of a new definition, which was first
worked out in the second session.228 The Roman legates and Syrian bishops expressed their
concerns regarding the lack of a explicit dual nature Christology within the draft. Marcian took
the lead demanding that the bishops amend the definition or else there would be a new council
convened in Rome under the supervision of Pope Leo. The record demonstrates that the
imperial authorities played a significant role in the production of a new definition of the faith. A
draft of the definition was discussed by a committee prior to the fifth session, in which, it became
clear that the majority were pleased with the conciliatory nature of the creed.229 On 22 October,
a committee of theologians led by Archbishop Anatolius, submitted a draft of the Definition. This
confession of the faith is no longer extant,230 but it appears to have employed the phrase “out of
two natures” rather than the Leonine “in two natures.”231 Many of bishops exclaimed that the
definition satisfied God and all attending the council.232 However, the Syrian bishops and the
papal legates objected to this first draft. Here, at a deadlock, there was an intermission in the
session, in which Emperor Marcian threatened to reconvene in the West if agreement was not
reached at Chalcedon.233 In one more attempt, 23 bishops, who were predominantly Cyrilline in

227 Gwynn, 15.
228 Ibid., II.2, vol. 2:10.
229 Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, said: “Did the definition of the faith satisfy everyone yesterday?” The most

devout bishops said: “The definition satisfied everyone. We do not hold a different belief. Anathema to whoever
holds a different belief. This is the faith of the fathers. The definition has satisfied God. This is the faith of the
orthodox. May the faith not suffer from chicanery. Write ‘Holy Mary the Theotokos,’ and add this to the creed.”
Ibid., V.7-8, vol. 2:197.
230 Jenkins notes that the draft statement was deliberately excluded from the minutes. He explains, “The council’s

fathers knew they would have to work hard enough to convince critics about the statement that eventually did
achieve consensus, without having to argueover every stage of the debate along the way.” Jenkins, 209.
231 Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, 543.
232 The bishops said: “The definition satisfied everyone. We do not hold a different belief. Anathema to whoever

holds a different belief. This is the faith of the fathers. The definition has satisfied God. This is the faith of the
orthodox. May the faith not suffer from chicanery. Write ‘Holy Mary the Theotokos ,’ and add this to the creed.”
Acts V.8, vol. 2:197.
233 The secretary Veronicianus read the following notification (here partially provided), “Or, if you do not approve

this, each one of you is to make his faith known through his metropolitan so as likewise to leave no doubt or
disagreement. If your holinesses do not want even this, you are to know that the council will have to meet in the
western parts, since your religiousness is unwilling to issue here an unambiguous definition of the true and orthodox
faith. Ibid., V.22, vol. 2:199.

37
their theological leanings, revised the Definition and submitted to the council fathers.234
However, at the same time, the imperial commissioners and Roman contingency demanded that
the Definition include Leo’s Letter to Flavian.235
The final version of the Definition probably had minor differences with the earlier draft.
It was revised quickly with only few changes. The majority of the Creed was already established
in the second and fourth sessions of the council. In these two sessions, the council fathers
confirmed the canonical status of the councils at Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381) and Ephesus
(431). Furthermore, the bishops affirmed the creeds of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381),
Cyril’s two conciliar letters and Leo’s Tome. In the second and fourth sessions, the council fathers
lauded Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius and his Letter to John of Antioch as canonical and conciliar
documents. In the fourth session, the secretary Veronicianus reconvened the meetings,236 then
the council fathers (beginning with the Roman legates) confirmed the orthodoxy of the Nicene
Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, Cyril’s two letters (i.e. Second Letter to Nestorius and
Letter to John of Antioch), and Leo’s Tome. Following the Roman response, Anatolius, the archbishop
of Constantinople, declared:
The letter of the most sacred and God-beloved Archbishop Leo accords with the creed of our
318 holy fathers at Nicaea and of the 150 who subsequently assembled at Constantinople and
confirmed the same faith, and with the proceedings of the ecumenical and holy council at
Ephesus under the most blessed Cyril, [now] among the saints, when it deposed the infamous
Nestorius. Therefore I have both expressed agreement and signed willingly.237

Anatolius, the archbishop of Constantinople, asked the council fathers if they found the
Definition to be satisfactory. The majority of bishops affirmed the new creed as part of the
Chalcedonian Definition. The first draft omitted the term Theotokos, which was an essential aspect
of Cyril’s theology that safeguarded against any Nestorianizing tendencies. On two occasions,
bishops demanded that the Theotokos be included in the Definition.238 The Antiochenes,
represented by John, bishop of Germanicia, requested for amendments to the Definition. Early in
the session, John of Germanicia asserted that the Definition was “not a good one and needs to be

234 Price note the Cyrillian nature of the committee. Thus, the final draft of the Definition was largely Cyrilline in its
character. Price, Acts II.188-9.
235 Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, 543.
236 Acts IV.4, vol. 2:126-27.
237 Ibid., IV.9.1, vol. 2:127-28.
238 In response to the reading of the draft of the Definition, the bishops declared: “The definition satisfied everyone.

We do not hold a different belief. Anathema to whoever holds a different belief. This is the faith of the fathers. The
definition has satisfied God. This is the faith of the orthodox. May the faith not suffer from chicanery. Write ‘Holy
Mary the Theotokos,’ and add this to the creed.” Ibid., V.8, vol. 2:197.

38
made precise.”239 Later, when John once again appeared before the council, the bishops
exclaimed “Drive out the Nestorians. Drive out the fighters or God…Yesterday the definition
satisfied everyone.”240 In addition to the Antiochene party, the Roman legates raised objections
against the draft. They threatened, “If they do not agree with the letter of the apostolic and most
blessed man Archbishop Leo, order letters to be given us so that we may return home, and the
council be concluded there.”241 From the first session of Chalcedon onwards, the Roman
representatives wanted to ensure a two nature Christology, which was in accordance with Leo
and Flavian.242
Dioscorus said, “I accept ‘from two natures’, but I do not accept ‘two.’” But the most holy
Archbishop Leo says that there are two natures in Christ, united without confusion, change or
separation in the one only-begotten Son our Saviour. So whom do you follow – the most holy
Leo, or Dioscorus?’ The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We believe as Leo does. Those who
object are Eutychianists. Leo’s teaching was orthodox.’ The most magnificent and glorious
officials said: “Then add to the definition in accordance with the decree of our most holy father
Leo that there are two natures united without change, division or confusion in Christ.”243

The most contentious issue during the deliberations over the Definition involved the
competing phrases “out of two natures” or “in two natures.” The first draft most likely opted
from the phrase “out of two natures,” which could be interpreted in a manner that affirmed the
Miaphysite position. Christ could be said to have come “from two natures,” which were then
united in the one nature whereas the phrase “in two natures” only fits within the two-nature
Christology of Leo. Price notes that the phrase “from two natures” does not occur in Leo’s Tome.
He asserts that, “Leo was too good a theologian to attach prime importance to formulae.”244 De
Halleux contends that the phrase “acknowledge in two natures” can be attributed to Basil of
Seleucia, who found warrant for the language in a letter from Cyril that asserted, “the same
perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood.”245 Whatever the origin of these two
phrases, the bishops ultimately privileged “in two natures” over “from two natures” because
Dioscorus approved of the latter phrase (i.e., from two natures). The imperial authorities insisted

239 Ibid., V.4, vol. 2:196.
240 Ibid., V.12, vol. 2:197.
241 Ibid., V.9, vol. 2:197.
242 In the first session of Chalcedon, Dioscorus of Alexandria declared, “I accept ‘from two [natures].’ I do not

accept ‘two.’” Ibid., I.332, vol. 1:194.

243 Ibid., V.26-8, vol. 2:200.
244 R. Price, “The Council of Chalcedon,” 80.
245 For his valuable assessment of the Chalcedonian Definition, see André de Halleux, “La définition christologique

à Chalcédoine,” Revue théologique Louvain 7 (1976): 2-23.

39
on changing the phrase from “of two natures” to “in two natures” in order to please the Western
church.246 The Roman legates concluded that Dioscorus’ affirmation of “from two natures”
demonstrated the insufficiency of the phrase. At the conclusion of the fifth session, the officials
called for the bishops to remain silent and listen to the Definition.247 At this point, Aetius,
archdeacon of Constantinople, read the Definition.248 The Definition consists of the Nicene
Creed (325),249 Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381),250 affirmation of Cyril’s two “conciliar
letters” and Leo’s Letter to Flavian (Leo’s Tome).251 Prior to reading of the new addition to the
ecumenical faith (the part of the Chalcedonian Definition that is often taken to be the whole of
it), Aetius declared:
For the council sets itself against those who attempt to dissolve the mystery of the dispensation
into a duality of sons, and it removes from the list of priests those who dare to say that the
Godhead of the Only-begotten is passible; it opposes those who imagine a mixing or confusion
in the case of the two natures of Christ, it expels those who rave that the form of a servant which
he took from us was heavenly or of some other substance, and it anathematizes those who invent
two natures of the Lord before the union and imagine one nature after the union.252

The rebuke of divine suffering addresses illustrates the ongoing tensions revolving around the
crucifixion and divine suffering. In the Twelve Anathemas, as mentioned above, Cyril affirmed that
the Word of God suffered in the flesh.253 The council fathers ignored Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas
because of the theopaschite claims. In the fourth session, the bishops affirmed Cyril’s Second and
Third Letters and Leo’s Tome; however, they did not receive Cyril’s Twelve Chapters. In the
Chalcedon colloquies, the Oriental (e.g. Antiochene) party demanded the condemnation of the
Twelve Chapters.254 There was little promise for the acceptance of the Twelve Chapters based on its
emphasis of the Word of God suffering in the flesh. After the above excerpt, Aetius read the final
(i.e., original) section of the Definition. This section is often taken to be the exclusive Definition of
451, but it should be read in collaboration with the earlier sections (e.g., Nicene and Niceno-
Constantinopolitan Creed). McGuckin rightly warns that the first two sections of the Definition

246 Need, 103.
247 Acts V.29, vol. 2:200-1.
248 For the Chalcedonian Definition in its totality, see Ibid., V.30-4, vol. 2:201-5.
249 Ibid., V.32, vol. 2:202.
250 Ibid., V.33, vol. 2:202-3.
251 Ibid., V.34, vol. 2:203.
252 Ibid., V.34, vol. 2:203-4.
253 “If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, was crucufied in the flesh, and tasted

death in the flesh, becoming the first-born from the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be
anatheam.” Cyril’s Twleve Anathemas, [anathema 12], in McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 275.
254 Ibid., 108.

40
“ought not be excised as if it were simple blather.”255 However, there needs to be some reflection
on McGuckin’s assertion regarding the Chalcedonian settlement, which he describes as merely
the Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople, which offer “no new creed to replace these cardinal
statements of faith.”256 The Chalcedonian Definition is not intended to be read as a novel creed,
for nothing is more damning than the charge of novelty, but the Definition does provide an
interpretive extension of the Creeds of 325 and 381. The Definition moves into receptive
interpretation when it declares:
Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we all in harmony teach confession of one and the same
Son our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly
God and the same truly man, of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in
respect of the Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us in respect of the manhood, like us in
all things apart from sin, begotten from the Father before the ages in respect of the Godhead,
and the same in the last days for us and for our salvation from the Virgin Mary the Theotokos in
respect of the manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged in
two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation (the difference of the natures being
in no way destroyed by the union, but rather the distinctive character of each nature being
preserved and coming together into one person and one hypostasis), not parted or divided into
two persons, but one and the same Son, Only-begotten, God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ, even as
the prophets from of old and Jesus Christ himself taught us about him and the symbol of the
fathers has handed down to us.257

Prior to a review of contemporary interpretations of the Definition, it is worth underlining

that the two natures are affirmed, which fits well the Antiochene tradition, but that these natures
are united as one person (prosopon) and hypostasis, which resonates with the Alexandrian tradition.
The Greek terms \prosopon and hypostasis were open for varied interpretation, which helps explain
why the council fathers affirmed it, but then later, the ambiguity would lead to competing
readings of the Definition. The Greek term person (prosopon) is defined as “external appearance”
or “face,” which relates to the Latin term persona, which is often translated as the outward
appearance of something.258 The Antiochenes would have rendered the term hypostasis as a
“substantial element” of which there were two, whereas the Alexandrians would have interpreted
the term hypostasis as a “concrete individual” that was surely one.259 The Chalcedonian Definition
asserts there is one individual reality (rather than two external appearances), which is confessed in
language steeped within the early Christian tradition: the Son, only-begotten god, Word, Lord

255 McGuckin, “Christ in the Chalcedonian Definition,” 255.
256 Ibid., 255.
257 Acts V.34, vol. 2:204.
258 Need, 103.
259 Ibid.

41
and Jesus Christ.260After receiving the Definition, the presiding bishops declared, “Now that
these matters have been formulated by us with all possible care and precision, the holy and
ecumenical council has decreed that no one is allowed to produce or compose or construct
another creed or to think or teach otherwise.”261 Here, with this affirmation, the bishops are
reclaiming Canon 7 of Ephesus I (431). At the end of the fifth session, the council fathers
acclaimed that the Definition was the “faith of the fathers” and the “faith of the apostles.”262
The Chalcedonian Definition begins with the confession of “our Lord Jesus Christ is one
in the same,” thereby recapitulating language that reaches back to as early as Ignatius of Antioch
(d. 107), who as Grillmeier states, predicates the divine and the human in one and the same
subject.263 The opening confession within the Definition effectively connects it with the ancient
confession of the church. Grillmeier argues that the theological method of the Chalcedonian
Definition is “no different from the earlier councils.”264 The next part of the Definition confesses
“the same Son our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in
manhood, truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body.” This phrase was carefully
crafted, it harkens back to the Formula of Reunion and Flavian’s professio fidei of 12 November 448.
The emphasis on a “rational soul” counters the past heresy of Apollinarius, who taught that the
Incarnation entailed the Word of God assuming a human body without a human soul, for it was
replaced by the divine Logos. Prior to Chalcedon, Cyril had truncated the above statement to
read “one in the same perfect in Godhead and in manhood,” with no mention of the truly God
and truly man consisting of a rational soul and body. The council fathers replaced Cyril’s phrase
with the Antiochene version.265 The affirmation of a rational soul and body fits well within the
Christian tradition that repudiated the docetic tendencies of Gnosticism and the loss of the
human nature within Apollinarism. Next, the Definition appropriates the Nicene language of
consubstantiality (homoousios) and extended it to the human nature. This is a clear refutation of
Eutyches who denied that Christ shared a consubstantial nature with humanity. From the outset,

260 Ibid.
261 Acts V.34, vol. 2:204.
262 Ibid., V.35, vol. 2:205.
263 Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to Ephesians 7.2; also, see Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition vol. 1, 546.
264 Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition vol. 1, 545.
265 Ibid., 546-7.

42
the Definition is rooted in tradition, more so than most other councils in Late Antiquity. The
Definition is “ancient tradition in a formula corresponding to the needs of the hour.”266

Modern Interpretations of the Chalcedonian Definition

The massive amount of scholarship, both in the form of focuses studies and cursory
treatments on the Council of Chalcedon and the Chalcedonian Definition, would require (as
McGuckin quipped) “an industrial truck to move it around campus.”267 Critiques and praises of
the Chalcedonian Definition are vast in scope and range, but in either case (whether applause or
criticism), contemporary scholars have routinely recognized 451 as the watershed moment of the
ecumenical councils. In his overview of the ecumenical councils, Need calls Chalcedon the “most
significant of the ecumenical councils” in terms of Christology.268 This type of overarching claim
of significance is common fare within many contemporary assessments of Chalcedon. In some of
the more recent interpretations, there is special focus placed on determining the influence of the
Church Fathers (e.g., Leo and Cyril) on the Chalcedonian Definition. Often at stake in the
modern interpretations is the legacy of the church fathers, most notably, Cyril, Leo and Flavian.
In western historiography, many notable scholars have concluded that Chalcedon Definition
signified the complete victory of the Latin West over the Greek East. The commonly held
assumption has been that Leo, who now had the backing of Marcian and Pulcheria, was placed
in a position of superiority over and against Cyril. Adolf von Harnack, for example, characterizes
the events of Chalcedon as the Eastern surrender to Emperor Marcian and Pope Leo.269 In a
more nuanced manner, which nonetheless underscores the Roman ascendancy, Grillmeier
argues that since Monophysitism was a greater danger than Nestorianism, the most pointed
Cyrilline statements (which were favored by Eutyches) were relegated to the background and
their place was “taken by the Tome of Leo, and the Antiochenes played a special part with the
Formulary of Reunion.”270 Additionally, Need argues that after the Formula of Reunion, Leo’s Tome
is the “second most important influence on the Chalcedonian Definition.”271 Finally, Pelikan
recognizes that the majority of quotes in the Chalcedonian Definition come from the writings of

266 Ibid., 550.
267 McGuckin, “Christ in the Chalcedonian Definition,” 246.
268 Need, 93.
269 Adolf von Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, vol. 2, Die Entwicklung des kirchlichen Dogmas I, 5th ed. (Tübingen:

Mohr), 390.
270 Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, 544.
271 Need, 96.

43
Cyril, but the contributions coming out Leo’s Tome were the most decisive ones.272
In recent decades, a succession of valuable studies have demonstrated that Cyril’s
influence upon the theological conclusions at Chalcedon was far more significant than had been
previously assumed within the main of Western scholarship.273 It is worth suggesting that many
of the council fathers’ reluctance regarding the production of a new confession was not only
grounded in traditionalism and appeals to Canon 7 of Ephesus, but also the Nicene Creed and
the writings of Ephesus I both supported a Cyrilline Christology. Many of the council fathers
affirmed one-nature Christology because they believed it was in accord with the Nicene tradition,
which meant, they would not affirm a new Definition unless it too supported the single nature
Christology of Nicaea. Furthermore, a close reading of the Chalcedonian Definition
demonstrates that there were important commonalities between Cyril and the Definition. The
famous adverbs of the Chalcedonian Definition, which qualified the relationship between the
human and divine natures in the person Jesus Christ, may have been derived from Cyril’s
writings. The Definition states that two natures are united in the one person so that each nature
remains unchangeably (ἀτρέπτως), undividedly (ἀδιαιρέτως), and unconfusedly (ἀσυγχύτως).
The two natures are united in the person Jesus Christ after the Incarnation. These adverbs
support a two-nature Christology, which appears to stand in agreement with Nestorius.
However, the origin of these three adverbs may be Cyril’s First Letter to Succensus. In his First Letter
to Succensus, Cyril declares, “We unite the Word of God the Father to the holy flesh endowed with
a rational soul, in an ineffable way that transcends understanding, without confusion, without
change, and without alteration, and we thereby confess One Son and Christ and Lord.”274 In the
Chalcedonian Definition and the Second Letter to Succensus, these adverbs qualified the relationship
between the human and divine natures thus ensuring the unity and particularity of both natures.

272 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic
Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 264.
273 For scholars who emphasize with Cyril’s infleunce upon the Chalcedonian Definition, see Herman M. Diepen,

Les Trois Chapitres au Concile de Chalcédoine: une étude de la christologie de l'Anatolie ancienne (Oosterhoud (Pays-Bas) Éditions
de Saint Michel, 1953); John Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. Washington D.C.: Corpus Books, 1969),
chs. 1-4; Patrick T.R. Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451 – 553), Studies in the History of Christian
Thought 20, ed. Heiko A. Oberman (Leiden: Brill, 1979); McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 227-43.
274 In the First Letter to Succensus, Cyril declared, “And so we unite the Word of God the Father to the holy flesh

endowed with a rational soul, in an ineffable way that transcends understanding, without confusion, without change,
and without alteration, and we thereby confess One Son and Christ and Lord.” Cyril, Ep. 45, sec. 6 (ACO 1.1.6:
153) English transaltion in McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 354. Cyril’s two letters to Succensus, bishop of
Diocaesarea in the province of Isauria, were written sometime between 434-438. For Cyril’s First Letter to Succensus
(Ep. 45), see ACO 1.1.6: 151-57. For English translation, see McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 352-58 (hereafter,
Cyril, Ep. 45).

44
Conversely, Need asserts that the expressions “without confusion” and “without change” come
from the Antiochene tradition,275 whereas the last two (i.e. “without division” and “without
separation”) belong to the Alexandrians.276 Despite the commonalities between Cyril’s First Letter
to Succensus and Leo’s Tome, several scholars have argued that Leo had almost exclusively relied
upon Augustine and Ambrose.277 Modern scholarship has demonstrated that there are two
clearly differentiated traditions, the West and East, that of Leo and that of Cyril, but the task of
the council fathers was to create a singular tradition from the two traditions. The four qualifying
adverbs of the Chalcedonian Definition had made it impossible to affirm Christ as a “mingled
God-man whose flesh was not real flesh.”278 The hard-line Cyrillians failed to appreciate the
theological similarities between Leo’s Tome and Cyril’s writings.279 Cyril’s influence upon the
Definition was significant. However, Cyril’s Twelve Chapters were once again passed over during
the conciliar proceedings. .
J.N.D. Kelly has offered a balanced interpretation of the Chalcedonian Settlement.280
First, Kelly emphasizes the political nature of the council by recounting that the imperial
commissioners exerted considerable pressure upon the bishops. He notes that from the imperial
perspective, the “whole object of the council, from the imperial point of view, was to establish a
single faith throughout the empire.”281 Second, reassessing the final version of the Definition,
Kelly describes it as a “mosaic of excerpts from Cyril’s two Letters, Leo’s Tome, the Union
Symbol and Flavian’s profession of faith at the Standing Synod.”282 Third, Kelly asserts that the
distinctive theology of the Definition is in its “equal recognition it accords to the unity and to the
duality in the God-man.”283 Then, on the one hand, Kelly recognizes that Chalcedon has often

275 Pelikan suggests the phrases “not divided or separarted into two persons” come from Theodoret. Pelikan, Christian
Tradition, 264.
276 Need, 102.
277 A.C. Stewart, “Persona in the Christology of Leo I. A Note,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of

Manchester 71 (1989): 3-5; Brian E. Daley, “The Giant Twin Substances: Ambrose and the Christology of Augustine’s
Contra sermonem Arianorum,” Augustine: Presbyter Factus Sum, ed. Jospeh T. Lienhard, et al. (New York: Peter Lang, 1993):
477-95.
278 Jenkins, 214.
279 The strict Cyrillians (which, for Wessel, would be those Christians who exclusively held to the earlier writings of

Cyril) would not affirm the continuity between Leo’s Tome and Cyril. The strict (Egyptian) Cyrillians are contrasted
with the majority of bishops present at the Council of Chalcedon. The majority, Wessel states, “had apparently
absorbed more of the interpretive freedom so characteristic of Cyril’s public teachings.” Wessel, 288-89.
280 For Kelly’s discussion of the “Chalcedonian Settlement,” see J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Peabody:

Prince Press, 2004 [first published in 1960]), 338-43.

281 Ibid., 339.
282 Ibid., 340-41.
283 Ibid., 341.

45
been rendered as the triumph of the Western and with it the Antiochene Christology. He
concludes that Roman support of two nature Christology ensured victory at Chalcedon;
furthermore, the council father’s rejection of Cyril’s “hypostatic union” betrayed Cyril and the
Alexandrian tradition, which was “prepared to drift off into schism as monophysites.”284 Kelly
admits that the above points suggest a Western victory, but it “does less than justice, however, to
the essential features of Cyril’s teachings enshrined, as has been shown, in the council’s
confession,” especially in the affirmation of the “oneness of Christ and of the identity of the
Person of the God-man with that of the Logos.”285 Additionally, the Definition’s use of the term
Theotokos for the Virgin Mary affirms the Alexandrian tradition.286 Furthermore, Kelly argues
that characterizing Chalcedon as a Western victory overlooks that Cyril’s Synodical Letters were
held in just as high honor as Leo’s Tome and “greatly exaggerates the theological differences
between the two.”287
Price argues that the Definition should be viewed as the vindication of Flavian. He notes
that the council fathers believed that Leo’s Tome stood in agreement with the Home Synod
(448).288 The Creed of the Home Synod, which Flavian of Constantinople declared to the
council, was read out in the first session of Chalcedon (451).289 The confession of the Home
Synod bears much resemblance with the addition with the Chalcedonian Definition.290 Price
asserts that the similarity between the two documents could be interpreted as the vindication of
Flavian of Constantinople at the Council of Chalcedon.291 He concludes, “the distinctive features

284 Ibid., 341-2.
285 Ibid., 342.
286 Need, 103.
287 Kelly, 342.
288 Price, Acts, vol 1:67.
289 The Archbishop Flavian decalred, “It is both most pious and necessary for us to agree with what has been

correctly defined, for who can oppose the words of the Holy Spirit? The letters that have been read of our father
Cyril of blessed memory and [now] among the saints, then bishop of the most holy church of Alexandria, give an
accurate interpretation of the thought of the holy fathers who assembled in their time at Nicaea, and they teach us
what we hold and have always held, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten son of God, is perfect God and
perfect man made up of a rational soul and body, begotten from the Father without beginning before the ages in
respect of the Godhead, and the same at the end and in the last times for us and for our salvation born from Mary
the Virgin in respect of the manhood, consubstantial with the Father in respect of the Godhead and consubstantial
with his mother in respect of the manhood. For we confess that Christ is from two natures after the incarnation, as
we confess in one hypostasis and one person one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Those who choose a different belief we
exclude from the holy assembly of priests and the whole body of the church. Each of the most God-beloved bishops
here present should record his beliefs and his faith in the text of the minutes.” Acts I.271, vol. 1:186-7.
290 Grillmeier makes a similar observation in his assessment of the Definition. He asserts, “Finally we must also add

Flavian’s professio fidei, which had been read out at the Council of Chalcedon in the context of the trial of Eutyches.”
Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition vol. 1, 544.
291 Acts I.271, vol. 1:186-7.

46
of western Christology echoed in the Tome were of no concern to the council fathers
whatsoever.”292
The final issue that demands serious reconsideration is the question of the doxological
and soteriological character of the Chalcedonian Definition. In his recent assessment of the
Chalcedonian Definition, McGuckin has argued for difference between the Eastern and Western
Christological traditions along the fault line of a doxological (or soteriological and mysterious)
approach in contrast with a philosophical (or legal and logical) approach, whereas the former
paradigm is ascribed to the East and the latter is ascribed to the West. McGuckin asserts that the
Eastern creedal tradition is rooted in the “doxological confessions” and restatements of the
“soteriological mystery in doxological form.”293 The Roman tradition, McGuckin asserts, placed
a “high valency to logical clarity,” which was in variance from the ancient tradition that centered
on the mystery of salvation.294 In contrast to McGuckin, Need emphasizes the confessional
nature of the Definition, which reaches back to early Christian language to become part of
Christian tradition and belief.295 Davis reaches a similar conclusion to McGuckin, albeit there is
a positive feel when he declares, “In his Tome Leo shows himself less of a speculative theologian
than Cyril; he does not discuss or demonstrate; he judges and settles difficulties, reproducing the
teaching of Tertullian, Augustine and the Antiochenes with uncommon precision and vigor.”296
McGuckin and Davis both conclude the Leo’s language is more concise than Cyril’s approach,
but were they vary in how they interpret the doxological and soteriological emphases of the
respective theologians.
McGuckin argues that Leo’s Tome did not contain any liturgical elements, instead it was
steeped in legal semantic precision that introduced a mechanistic conception of person as “that
factor which stands as a possessor of a generic nature.”297 Need makes a similar claim when he
asserts that the Definition is “riddled with Greek philosophical distinctions and ambiguities that
need to be understood if the overall thrust of the Christology is to be appreciated.”298 Where
Need holds out the possibility for appreciation, McGuckin opts for critique when he insists that

292 Furthermore, Gaddis asserts, “In all, despite the formal approval of the Tome by the eastern bishops both before
the council, at the council, and in the Definition itself, it remained far less important for them than the conciliar
letters of Cyril.” Price, Acts, vol 1:67.
293 McGuckin, “Christ in the Chalcedonian Definition,” 250-1.
294 Ibid., 250.
295 Need,101.
296 Davis, 175.
297 McGuckin, “Christ in the Chalcedonian Definition,” 253.
298 Need, 101.

47
the Chalcedonian statement is virtually “tone deaf” to the mystery of salvation, that is, how the
Word of God caught up and deified human nature.299 If Christology was to be authentic then it
functions always as soteriology.300 McGuckin concludes by asserting the dragged out negotiations
throughout the Acts of Chalcedon were largely about shifting away from Leo’s Tome and towards a
creed that had a more doxological character.301 In no uncertain terms, McGuckin’s reading of
the Chalcedonian Definition places it in opposition with the doxological and soteriological
rootedness of the Eastern tradition. In contemporary scholarship, the precise language of the
Creed has led some interpreters to argue that the settlement attenuates the mystery of the
economy of salvation. However, the precise language of the Definition can be read in the another
direction, where one argues that the terms are meant to engender a paradox in the qualifiers
embedded within the statement. Davis’ interpretation of the four qualifying adverbs of the
Definition supports the argument for a mystery affirming interpretation of the Creed. By
employing “a series of four Greek negative adverbs – without confusion, without change, without
division, without separation,” Davis asserts the bishops “showed their concern for the mysterious
and incomprehensible nature of the subject matter with which they were dealing.”302 The
employment of precise language does not necessarily mean the Definition did away with the
mystery of the Incarnation. In the fifth century, all serious theologians pained over the correct
use of language in order to safeguard the mystery of salvation. The question was which
theologian and tradition had most adequately expressed the Gospel in a way that declared the
truth and mystery of the Incarnation.

The theological concept of communicatio idiomatum (the communication of the properties) is

central to the soteriological import of the Chalcedonian Definition. Davis explains that Leo’s
Christology rests upon the unity of the natures (i.e., divine and human) through communicatio
idiomatum,303 which leads to an understanding that the “Son of God is said to have been crucified
and buried, though He suffered these things not in the Godhead itself, wherein the Only
Begotten is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human

299 McGuckin, “Christ in the Chalcedonian Definition,” 254.
300 Ibid., 250.
301 Ibid., 251.
302 Davis, 187.
303 Need notes the same priniciple at the heart of Leo’s Tome. He asserts that the “one person” in two natures shared

qualities through an interchange of properties known as the “comunion of idioms (communicatio idiomatum).” Need, 98.

48
nature.”304 In other words, Leo’s Tome is invested in the salvific nature of the Incarnation.
Eutyches was required to confess that “he whom he knows to have been subject to suffering was a
man of like body to ours, since denial of His true flesh is denial also of His bodily passion,” which
wrought the world’s salvation.305 Regarding Eutyches, Need advances a similar line of
argumentation as Davis by concluding, “Once again the humanity of Christ had been
undermined through too much emphasis on the divinity and once again there were severe
implications for the Christian understanding of salvation.”306 The Western church condemned
Eutyches on theological grounds. He was a powerful and charismatic monk, but when he
threatened the relationship between the Incarnation and salvation, the church was compelled to
condemn his propositions. The West and East were both equally concerned with the relation
between soteriology and doctrinal statements; indeed, for Leo, Cyril, and the majority of
theologians, one of their central aims was articulating the mystery of the Incarnation in order to
explain its soteriological significance.

V. Ecclesiastical Rulings of Chalcedon

In the sixth session (25 October 451), the Chalcedonian Definition was read before
Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria.307 At the end of the sixth session, 452 bishops signed
their approval to the Definition.308 In a well-received speech, Marcian praised the bishops for
their grand achievement. The bishops made a request to conclude the Council of Chalcedon,309
but Marcian demanded them to stay a bit longer in order to deal with additional ecclesiastical
issues.310 In the next couple of sessions, the bishops returned back to issues stemming from
Ephesus II (449). In the seventh session, convened on 26 October 451, the bishops arrived as a
decision concerning the jurisdictional rights of the metropolitan of Jerusalem.311 Maximus, the

304 Davis, 176.
305 Ibid.
306 Need, 95.
307 For the sixth session, see Acts vol. 2:206-43.
308 Need, 98.
309 At the conclusion of the session, the bishops exclaimed: “Just is the decision of the emperor. O you [Marcian]

worthy of the holy one! One Easter for the whole world! Put an end to the misfortunes of the bishops. The holy one
will protect you. We beg you, dismiss us. You are pious, O emperor; dismiss us.” Acts VI.22, vol. 2:243.
310 In response to the requests of the bishops to conclude the council, Marcian declared, “You are exhausted after

enduring toil for a fair period of time. But remain three or four days longer, and in the presence of our most
magnificent officials, move whatever proposals you wish; you will receive appropriate help. None of you is to leave
the holy council until definitive decrees have been issued about everything.” Ibid., VI.23, vol. 2:243.
311 For the seventh session, see Ibid., vol. 2:244-9.

49
bishop of Antioch, strived to have Palestine, Phoenice and Arabia returned back to the
Antiochene patriarchate. All three of these regions were stripped from the patriarchate of
Antioch at Ephesus II. In the seventh session, the bishops concluded that the patriarchate of
Jerusalem was allowed to keep its independence from the Antiochene see, but Phoenice and
Arabia were returned back under the ecclesiastical control of Antioch. Thus, the decisions of
Ephesus 449 were renegotiated, affirming the independence of Jerusalem and restoring Phoenice
and Arabia to Antioch.312 In the eighth session, held on 26 October 451, the bishops restored
Theodoret of Cyrrhus to his see, which was stripped away during Ephesus of 449.313 In later
generations, the restoration of Theodoret was used as evidence for riving an underlying
Nestorianism at the Council of Chalcedon. The ninth and tenth sessions addressed the status of
Ibas, bishop of Edessa, thus returning to another issue from Ephesus II (449).314

VII. Legacy of Chalcedon

Chalcedon Reconsidered
The legacy of Chalcedon remains exceptionally complicated because it is always a matter
of interpretation and contestation. There is no essential Chalcedon. There is no Chalcedon as it
really was, but only the reception and interpretation of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which
are often impregnated with theological, cultural and political motivations. Once the bishops
acclaimed their approval of the Chalcedonian Definition, they declared that the “ecumenical
council has decreed that no one is allowed to produce or compose or construct another creed or
to think or teach otherwise.”315 If anyone devised another creed, they were to be deposed if at the
status of the bishop or cleric, alternatively, they were to be anathematized if at the status of monk
or laity.316 In the Western Church, the majority of bishops viewed Chalcedon as the capstone of
the four ecumenical councils. Indeed, in Western discourse, there has been a parallel made
between the first four Ecumenical Councils and the four Gospels. They are both authoritative

312 The Roman legates declared (then bishops in succession affirmed) as follows, “We recognize that this proposal
resulting from an agreement between our brothers Maximus the most devout bishop of the church of Antioch and
the most devout and holy Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem was made for the sake of the benefit of peace, that is, that the
bishop of the church of Antioch should have the two Phoenices and Arabia and the bishop of Jerusalem the three
Palestines. May it be confirmed in addition by the declaration of our humility, so that from now on no rivalry may
remain between the aforesaid churches over this matter.” Ibid., VII.7, vol. 2:248.
313 For the eighth session, see Ibid., vol. 2:250-7.
314 For the ninth session, see Ibid., vol. 2:258-64; for the tenth session, see Ibid., vol. 2:265-309.
315 Ibid., 5.34, vol. 2:204.
316 Ibid., 5.34, vol. 2:205.

50
and just as importantly viewed as closed canons. Chalcedon stood as the Fourth Ecumenical
Council and the Definition was the closure of universal doctrinal statements. Even though the
Acts of Chalcedon remained unavailable throughout the West until a century after the
proceedings,317 the council was immediately received as the final and authoritative word of the
universal church. Even if Chalcedon was the final word on the Christian faith (which, of course,
it most certainly was not), there has been scores of interpretation that have contoured the legacy
of this monumental council. There is not one legacy of Chalcedon. Instead, there are legacies of
Chalcedon, which interact, sometimes cooperatively and other times in competition, with one
another.

Divisions after Chalcedon: Failures of Imperial Ecumenism

The Chalcedonian Definition failed to unite the Christian oikoumene. Divisions within
Eastern Christianity increased following Chalcedon. The failure of Chalcedon as a unifying event
is undeniable. The Chalcedonian Definition was a Symbolum of the faith, and as such, it was open
for a wide range of interpretations, for symbols of faith (or otherwise) often contain a surplus of
meaning. The tendency to ascribe cause to Chalcedon for the ongoing rupturing within
Christianity needs to be reevaluated. A score of contemporary assessments have ascribed to
Chalcedon a causal relation to the divisions that ensued into the sixth century and onwards. In
some modern assessments, the Council of Chalcedon has been criticized for causing more
division within the universal church. After Chalcedon, the Eastern churches increasingly
separated from one another, which stands as a divide that has never been fully restored to the
present day. There are several lines of reasoning that support placing much blame upon
Chalcedon for the fractured state of the Eastern churches from the middle of the fifth century
onwards. For instance, Need concludes that, “even though it became the most important
conciliar statement about Christ, it caused serious divisions between Christians that have
persisted to this day.”318 McGuckin asserts there were signs of healing in the East, such as the
case of Theodoret, who shifted from opposition against Cyril to affirming the hypostatic language

317 A Latin version of the Acts of Chalcedon dates from 546, when Facundus of Hermiane referenced the Latin Acts in
his Defence of the Three Chapters. See Friedrich Maassen, Geschicthe der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Recths, vol. I
(Gratz: Leuschner & Lubensky, 1870), 139.
318 Need, 94.

51
associated with Cyrilline Christology.319 McGuckin then makes a bold leap asserting that the
Syrians and Alexandrians were “healing, if not healed, and would have merged in a generation
or less – so long as precipitate action had not been taken to press a point that perhaps did not
need to be insisted on.” Thereafter, McGuckin explains that “Chalcedon proved to be the last
straw for many in the East, not because of the ongoing argument between the Syrians and the
Alexandrians but because a new element had been stirred into the mix: precisely the narrowing
of the question down to “One or two natures after the Union?”320 McGuckin’s insightful
conclusions are provocative and warrant further consideration; however, a word of caution
should be inserted here, as divisions within the Eastern church can not be reduced to a singular
event or cause, even one as a momentous as Chalcedon, rather, schisms and ruptures within the
church almost always entail long and circuitous plotlines with many interventions, characters and
events along the way. It is far too weighty to suggest that the Syrians and Alexandrians would
have healed within the fifth or sixth century if not for the outcomes at the Council of Chalcedon.
Theodoret’s theology may have shifted more towards a Cyrilline perspective, and it could also be
suggested that Cyril showed moments of openness towards two-nature Christology, but it is a
reach to suggest that the Syrians and Alexandrian were healed or in the process of healing in the
fifth century. There were always ebbs and flows within interchurch relations, but ultimately, the
arch has been towards increased factionalism. Perhaps, now with the advent of modern day
ecumenism, we are witnessing a turn towards genuine reconciliation.
The blaming of Chalcedon for the ills of Christianity is even witnessed with Grillmeier,
who first suggests that the Church Fathers were not to blame for the divisions after Chalcedon,
and then asserts that the tragedy of the Fourth Ecumenical Council was that it “led to a long war
and division in the church.”321 This notion of Chalcedon “leading” to war and division is a
common trope but it needs to be reevaluated as it is a thoroughly teleological claim. The Fourth
Ecumenical Council was not the sui generis cause of divisions in the universal church. Chalcedon is
another example of the paradox of imperial ecumenism, which attempted to enforce uniformity
within the church through the convocation of councils. The paradox of imperial ecumenism is

319 Davis notes the same shift within Theodoret, who “ended by accepting Cyril’s basic view that the Word is the sole
person of Jesus Christ.” Davis further explains, “In 447 Theodoret wrote against those who , holding that Christ’s
humanity and divinity formed one nature, taught that the humanityhad not really been derived from the Virgin and
that the divinity suffered.” Davis, 172.
320 McGuckin, “Christ in the Chalcedonian Definition,” 253.
321 Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, 548.

52
that whenever uniformity was enforced from above, it would nearly always lead to more division
over the long run. Ecclesiastical factions following Nicaea (325) and then every ecumenical
council thereafter often defined themselves by either rejecting the conciliar decisions or more
likely the parties would affirm the ecumenical definitions but then interpret them in a manner
that engendered difference with rival movements. Factionalism increased after Ephesus I as well.
Perhaps no one has perceived the malady of councils more than the Cappadocian father,
Gregory of Nazianzus, who once declared, “My inclination is to avoid all assemblies of bishops,
because I have never seen any council come to a good end, nor turn out to be a solution of evils.
On the contrary, it usually increases them.”322 If one wants to blame Chalcedon for the ensuing
divisions after 451, then let it be placed within the broader narrative, which demonstrates that
this is the common failure of each and every ecumenical council. The reason for this pattern of
enforced imperial uniformity followed by factionalism is two-fold. First, the bishops were willing
to bow down before imperial mandates at the councils, but then they returned home to once
again embrace their local traditions. Second, and this point is essential, the Creeds of the
Ecumenical Councils provided opportunity for creating increased divisions through the practice
of receptive interpretation.

Chalcedon as Theological Compromise or Ecumenical Traditioning

Many commentators on the Chalcedonian Definition, as Need and other scholars have
recounted, have “misleadingly interpreted this statement of faith as a mere compromise between
the Antiochene and Alexandrian Christologies.” McGuckin recounts that many historians have
interpreted the Definition as a “hopeless enmeshment in historical compromising.”323 A number
of scholars have routinely characterized Chalcedon as an attempt at ecclesiastical compromise.
Frances Young has described the Chalcedonian Definition as a ecclesiastical compromise, that is,
a “committee product” that exclaims negotiation.324 Need asserts the Definition was an attempt
to “bring together Antiochene and Alexandrian insights.”325 Finally, Davis admits that Leo did
not solve every problem, but he notes that the Antiochenes could find their “two-nature”

322 Quote from Gregory of Nazianzus is borrowed from Jenkins, who does no primary source. Jenkins,129.
323 McGuckin, “Christ in the Chalcedonian Definition,” 247.
324 In assessing the Chalcedonian Definition, Young declares, “There’s an old saying that a camel is a horse

produced by a committee! The Definition is, of course, a ‘committee product,’ and it shouts ‘compromise’ at us as
soon as we realize what lay behind its production.” Frances M. Young, “The Council of Chalcedon 1550 Years
Later,” Touchstone (2001): 12.
325 Need, 94.

53
Christology and the Alexandrians could recognize Cyril’s basic insight “that the person of the
Incarnate is identical with that of the Divine Word.”326
Numerous reassessments have characterized the Definition as a mere compromise devoid
of much originality and merit. There is much truth to these assertions, indeed, the Definition was
first and foremost, a statement that supported the conservation of the Christian tradition. With
the said, there is a positive contribution within the Chalcedonian Symbolum, which is most located
in its attempt to advance an interpretation of the Nicene tradition. In his favorable assessment,
Need concludes that the Definition was “a finely balanced statement of the complex relation
between Christ’s divinity and humanity, bringing together elements from both (Antiochene and
Alexandrian) approaches but adding significantly deeper insights into the person of Christ.”327
Grillmeier recognizes that the task of the council fathers was to “construct its own exposition of
the tradition” in order for it to be received as an universal confession of the Christian faith.328
Here, with the Chalcedonian Definition, Grillmeier declares, “as in almost no other formula
from the early councils, all the important centres [sic] of the church life and all the trends of
contemporary theology, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople and Antioch, have contributed
towards the framing of a common expression of faith.”329 In the Definition’s attempt at
establishing a universalizing tradition, it opened itself up from misinterpretation, where the
Alexandrians detected Nestorianism and the Antiochenes feared Eutychianism. The irony here
should not be lost, for the Definition strived to counter both Nestorianism and Eutychianism by
drawing from the orthodox traditions of the universal church.
Chalcedon was not primarily concerned with placing Leo over Cyril, or Cyril over Leo,
rather the bishops were foremost committed to remaining faithful to the Nicene Creed through
the practice of receptive interpretation.330 Emperor Marcian initially called for the universal
council to meet in Nicaea. On 1 September 451, the bishops had arrived in Nicaea, but Marcian
was detained in Constantinople on account of the Hunnish encroachments. Marcian’s desire to

326 Davis, 176.
327 Need, 101.
328 Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition vol. 1, 544.
329 Ibid.
330 In her assessment of the Chalcedonian Definition, Young asserts, “The first thing to note is that there is not

attempt to produce a new creed. It is recognized that the controversy was about the proper interpretation of already
agreed-upon creeds. The previous century had seen council after council trying to improve on the creed of Nicaea
without achieving consensus. So sensibly the common starting-point in the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople is
acknowledged at Chalcedon.” Young, 11; also, see Robert L. Wilken, “Tradition, Exegesis, and the Christological
Controversies,” Church History 34 (1965): 123-45.

54
hold the council at Nicaea demonstrates the symbolic significance attached to Nicene tradition.
Calling for the council to be held at Nicaea represents a harkening back to the First Ecumenical
Council, that is, to original universal council convoked by the famous Emperor Constantine.
From the early conciliar proceedings onwards, the council fathers lauded Leo and Cyril as the
faithful interpreters of the Nicene Creed. They both were said to stand in total agreement with
the Nicene tradition, which was rightly upheld at the Council of Ephesus (431).331 Furthermore,
as mentioned several times throughout this study, the Chalcedonian Definition included the
Nicene Creed (325) and the Constantinopolitan Creed (381) in their entirety prior to the
inclusion of Cyril’s Synodical Letters and the Chalcedonian Definition. Kelly’s final assertion is
on point, where he asserts it is not that (as the council fathers acclaimed) Leo and Cyril taught the
same thing, at least not at every point, but they were many similarities to be lifted up within a
conciliar creedal statement. As Kelly notes, Cyril once admitted that after the act of union it is
still possible to speak of two natures.332 Cyril’s emphasis on the single nature Christology was a
defense against Nestorianism. The Chalcedonian Definition clearly rejected the errors of
Nestorius, therefore, Kelly conjectures that it is “reasonable to suppose, in the light of his attitude
to the Union Symbol, that he too would have acquiesced in the Chalcedonian settlement and
would have been embarrassed by the intransigence of his over-enthusiastic allies.”333 In
conclusion, Kelly declares that if (and here it is by no means fully conceded) Antiochene
Christology emerged as victorious at Chalcedon, it was only after absorbing and being modified
by the “fundamental truths contained in the Alexandrian position.”334
Convinced of the all-encompassing sufficiency of the Nicene tradition, the council fathers
did not want to insert any new theological statements within the Definition. Furthermore, the
bishops aimed at providing a Definition that would be approved by the universal church. In his
assessment of the conciliar fathers’ positive reception of the Definition, Price asserts, “It would be
absurd to suggest that either of these groups thought themselves as correcting Cyril; they must
have given a Cyrillian interpretation to what they approved, even if the Definition had to contain

331 In one of his positive contributions at Ephesus II (449), Dioscorus argued that the Council of Ephesus (431) was in
kindred agreement with the Council of Nicaea (325). He asserted that Nicaea and Ephesus were synonymous
councils. Perry has translated the conciliar proceedings of Ephesus II (449) from the Syriac into English. The Second
Synod of Ephesus: Together with Certain Extracts Relating to it, trans. Samuel G.F. Perry (Dartford: Orient Press, 1881), 347.
332 Kelly references Cyril’s Epistula 40. Kelly, 342.
333 Ibid., 342.
334 Ibid.

55
phrases that would satisfy the Roman delegates.”335 It is beyond contestation that the
Chalcedonian Definition has many Cyrilline elements, but perhaps, rather than framing the new
creed as either Cyrilline or Leonine, it would be more enlightening to recall that no theologian is
greater than the Christian tradition. Every Church Father is bound to the tradition. The
importance of the Chalcedonian Definition is located in its attempt to reaffirm the conciliar
creeds and the writings of Cyril and Leo in a manner that conceives of them within one
continuum of the Christian tradition. Under imperial orders, the council fathers provided an
expression of “the faith of the whole church,”336 which was an impossible task, especially after a
century of factionalism reaching back to the Council of Nicaea, then through the Trinitarian
Controversy of the fourth century, followed up by the Council f Ephesus and the Christological
Controversy of the early fifth century.
Even through abstract philosophical concepts have found their way into the Definition,
the theological approach of the council fathers consists in carefully listening to the witness of the
Christian faith.337 The council fathers did not believe they said anything new with the Definition.
The confession has philosophical concepts, but it is only in relation to the established tradition of
the church. In one of his most intriguing provocations, Grillmeier contends that none of the
council fathers “could have even given the definition of the concepts with which they had now
expressed christological dogma.”338 The council fathers did not intend to explain the
proclamation of the church even when it employed philosophical terms.339 In the fifth century,
the formal terminology of the Definition would have sounded more confessional and conversely
less technical than it translates to modern historians. The council fathers employed philosophical
terms in an attempt to explain the biblical witness of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, born in
the flesh, thus truly divine and truly human.340 In short, the Chalcedonian Definition does not
represent a novel turning point in early Christian doctrine, rather it stands as a traditional

335 Price, “The Council of Chalcedon,” 81.
336 Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition vol. 1, 545.
337 Ibid.
338 Ibid.
339 Insisting upon the lack of philosophical pedigree with the council fathers, Grillmeier asserts, “The formula of the

council states only the bare essentials of what was needed to resolve the difficulties of the time, which were, of course,
the result of a long development. It was not at that time the intention to draw out all the consequences of the
complete distinction of the natures in Christ.” Ibid., 550.
340 Arguing for the biblical basis of the creed, Grillmeier argues that the “apparently abstract and formal concepts of

this Definition must always be suuplemented from Holy Scripture.” Ibid.

56
confession, which affirms, interprets and reconstitutes the witness of the ancient church.341 In
assessing the Definition, Pelikan concludes that the genealogy of this decree makes it clear that it
is not an “original and new creation, but like a mosaic, was assembled almost entirely from stones
that were already available.”342
The work of integrating Leo and Cyril into the grander witness of the church tradition
continued after the Council of Chalcedon. In August of 458, Pope Leo (440-61) sent a letter to
Emperor Leo, in which was included a florilegium of the Church Fathers (testimonia excerpta de libris
Catholicorum Patrum).343 Leo included some excerpts from Cyril’s Scholia on the Incarnation and a
longer portion of his Second Letter to Nestorius. In the excerpt from the Second Letter, Leo included
Cyril’s doctrine that the Word of God suffered in the flesh for humanity. In this excerpt, Cyril
explained that the Word of God did not suffer in his nature but insofar as that which is attributed
to his own body suffered, then he (Word of God) suffered for our sake since the Impassible One
was in the suffering body.344 The majority of Cyril’s writings, save his Third Letter to Nestorius and
the Twelve Anathemas, continued to be received in the canon of the church fathers in the years
following Chalcedon. The Definition taught a “hypostatic union” of Christ, but it needed further
explication for it ignored some of the most difficult issues. Pelikan asserts, “It was not clear, for
example, who the subject of the suffering and crucifixion was, for these events in the history of
salvation were not so much as mentioned.”345 The issue of divine suffering would be picked up
with much vigor by the Neo-Chalcedonians of the early sixth century,346 spearheaded by John
Maxentius and the Scythian monks, would lead to the vindication of Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas at

341 In appreciating the economical ways in which the Definition expresses the powerful ideas of the Christian past,
Jenkins asserts, “the Defintion cannot be appreciated excerpt as a compressed commentary on a long previus history
that is only alluded to in a brief document.” Jenkins, 212-13.
342 Pelikan, Christian Tradition, 264.
343 For the letter with excerpts from the church fathers, see Leo, Ep. 165 (Ad Leonem Augustum), PL 54: 1155-1190. For

the excerpts from Cyril’s Scholia and his Second Letters to Nestorius, see PL 54: 1186A-1190A.
344 In his letter to Emperor Leo, Pope Leo prserves an excerpt from Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius: “Sic illum dicimus

et passum esse et resurrexisse, non quia Deus Verbum in sua natura passus sit aut plagas, aut clavorum transfixiones,
aut alia vulnera (Deus namque incorporalis extra passionem est), sed quia corpus illud, quod ipsius proprium factum
est, ideo haec omnia pro nobis ipse dicitur passus. Inerat enim in eo corpore quod patiebatur, Deus, qui pati non
poterat. Simili modo et mortem ipsius intelligimus. Immortale enim et incorruptibile est naturaliter, et vita, et
vivificans Dei, Verbum. Sed quia corpus ipsius proprium, gratia Dei, iuxta Pauli vocem, pro omnibus mortem
gustavit, idcirco ipse dicitur mortem passus esse pro nobis.” Leo, Ep. 165 (Ad Leonem Augustum), PL 54: 1188AB). For
the Greek version of this excerpt from Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius, see Cyril, Ep. 4 (ACO 1.1.1: 27); for an English
translation, see McGuckin, Christological Controversy, 264.
345 Pelikan, Christian Tradition, 265.
346 Neo-Chalcedonians is a term used to describe those theologians who affirmed the Council of Chalcedon, but did

so with a Cyrilline emphasis, which included a championing of his Twelve Anathemas.

57
the Second Council of Constantinople (553), which is the next chapter within the story of the
Ecumenical Councils.
Emperors convoked ecumenical councils in order to promote, or more to the point,
enforce universality within the church. Emperor Marcian called for a new definition of faith that
was inclusive and integrative, one that created a totalizing tradition, which affirmed that the
tradition is greater than any single theologian. In other words, the sum or whole is greater than
the individual parts, when this conviction (i.e., Gestalt theory) is applied to the Chalcedonian
Definition, it sets up an interpretive framework that reads the establishment of a creedal tradition
(i.e., Definition) as a whole entity that is to be privileged over the individual components (e.g.,
Cyril and Leo) within it. The whole is greater than the parts, or in ecclesiastical jargon, the
Christian tradition is greater than any one Church Father, or for that mater, any two Church
Fathers. To affirm that Leo and Cyril teach the same thing is really nothing more than affirming
both belong within the tradition of the church. The modern inclination to isolate the particular
components of the Chalcedonian Definition is a valuable academic exercise, but it moves in the
opposite direction of achievement of Chalcedon, which is the formation of an integrative
tradition that confesses the mystery of salvation in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

58