Fourth Ecumenical Council. Fourth Ecumenical Council Political reasons for convening

Library “Chalcedon”

___________________

N. D. Talberg

From the book "Church History. Part 1"

Third Ecumenical Council. History of Nestorianism after the Council. Fourth Ecumenical Council. Monophysite heresy after the council.

Third Ecumenical Council

By the end of the 4th century, after fighting various kinds of heretics, the Church fully revealed the teaching about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, confirming that He is God and at the same time man. But people of science were not satisfied with the positive teaching of the Church; in the doctrine of the God-manhood of Jesus Christ they found a point that was not clear to reason. This is a question about the image of the union in the Person of Jesus Christ of the Divine and human nature and the mutual relationship of both. This question is at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century. occupied the Antioch theologians, who took upon themselves the task of explaining it scientifically, through reason. But since they attached greater importance to considerations of reason than they should have, then, in clarifying this issue, just as in previous explanations, they did not avoid heresies that worried the Church in the 5th, 6th and even 7th centuries.

Heresy of Nestorius was the first of the heresies that developed in the Church during the scientific explanation of the question of the image of the union in the Person of Jesus Christ of the Divine and human nature and their mutual relationship. It, like the heresy of Arius, came out of the Antioch school, which did not allow mystery in the understanding of the dogmas of faith. To the theologians of the School of Antioch, the doctrine of the union of the two natures, Divine and human, limited and unlimited, into one Person of the God-man Jesus Christ seemed incomprehensible and even impossible. Wanting to give this teaching a reasonable and understandable explanation, they came to heretical thoughts. Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus (d. 394), formerly an Antioch presbyter and school teacher, was the first to develop this kind of thought. He wrote an essay in refutation of Apollinaris, in which he proved that in Jesus Christ human nature, both before and after union with the Divine, was complete and independent. But, defining the image of the union of two complete natures, he found it difficult (due to the views of the Antiochian school on dogmas) to say that the human and Divine nature constituted one Person of Jesus, and therefore he differentiated them from each other by the fact that there was no complete and significant unification between them. He taught that the Son, perfect before the ages, received what was perfect from David, that God the Word dwelt in him who was born of the seed of David, as in a temple, and that man was born from the Virgin Mary, and not God the Word, for mortal begets mortal by nature. Hence, according to Diodorus, Jesus Christ was a simple man in whom the Divinity dwelt, or who carried the Divinity within himself.

Diodorus's student, Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuet (d. 429), developed this idea even more fully. He sharply distinguished the human personality from the Divine personality in Jesus Christ. The essential union of God the Word with the man Jesus into one person, according to his concept, would be a limitation of the Divinity, and therefore it is impossible. Between them only external unity is possible, contact of one with the other. Theodore revealed this contact in this way: the man Jesus was born of Mary, like all people naturally, with all human passions and shortcomings. God the Word, foreseeing that He would withstand the struggle with all passions and triumph over them, wanted through Him to save the human race, and for this, from the moment of His conception, He united with Him by His grace. The grace of God the Word, which rested on the man Jesus, sanctified and strengthened His strength even after His birth, so that He, having entered into life, began to struggle with the passions of body and soul, destroyed sin in the flesh and destroyed its lusts. For such a virtuous life, the man Jesus was honored to be adopted from God: it was from the time of baptism that He was recognized as the Son of God. When Jesus then conquered all the devilish temptations in the wilderness and achieved the most perfect life, God the Word poured out on Him the gifts of the Holy Spirit to an incomparably higher degree than on the prophets, apostles and saints, for example, He imparted to Him the highest knowledge. Finally, during his suffering, the man Jesus endured the final struggle with human infirmities and was awarded for this divine knowledge and divine holiness. Now, God the Word is united with the man Jesus in the most intimate manner; unity of action was established between them, and the man Jesus became an instrument of God the Word in the matter of saving people.

Thus, for Theodore of Mopsuet, God the Word and the man Jesus are completely separate and independent personalities. Therefore, he in no way allowed the use of expressions relating to the man Jesus in application to God the Word. For example, in his opinion, one cannot say: God was born, Mother of God, because God was not born from Mary, but man, or: God suffered, God was crucified, because the man Jesus suffered again. This teaching is completely heretical. His last conclusions are the denial of the sacrament of the incarnation of God the Word, the redemption of the human race through the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, since the suffering and death of an ordinary person cannot have a saving significance for the entire human race, and, ultimately, the denial of all Christianity.

While the teaching of Diodorus and Theodore was spread only as a private opinion in a circle of people involved in theological issues, it did not meet with refutations or condemnations from the Church. But when the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius started making it church-wide teaching, the Church opposed it as a heresy and solemnly condemned it. Nestorius was a student of Theodore of Mopsuet and a student of the Antioch School. He led the fight against the Church and gave his name to this heretical teaching. While still a hieromonk in Antioch, he was famous for his eloquence and severity of life. In 428, Emperor Theodosius II the Younger made him Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorius brought presbyter Anastasius from Antioch, who preached several sermons in the church in the spirit of the teachings of F. Mopsetsky that the Virgin Mary should be called not the Mother of God, but the Mother of Man. Such a teaching was news, since in Constantinople, Alexandria and other churches the ancient Orthodox teaching about the union of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ was preserved. This connection was looked upon as an essential connection into one Divine-Human Face, and it was not allowed in Him, as a single person, to separate the Divinity from humanity. Hence, in the public name of the Blessed Virgin Mary it was Mother of God. These sermons of Anastasius excited the entire clergy, monks and people. To stop the unrest, Nestorius himself began to preach and reject the name Mother of God, which, in his opinion, was irreconcilable with reason and Christianity, but did not allow the name Mother of Man, but called the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ. After this explanation, the unrest in Constantinople did not subside. Nestorius began to be accused of heresy by Paul of Samosata, since it was clear that this was not only about calling the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, but about the Face of Jesus Christ. Nestorius began to persecute his opponents and even condemned them at the Council of Constantinople (429), but in doing so he only increased the number of his enemies, of whom there were already many due to the correction he had undertaken to correct the morals of the clergy. Soon rumors of these disputes spread to other churches and discussions began here.

In Antioch and Syria, many took the side of Nestorius, mainly people who came from the Antioch School. But in Alexandria and Rome the teachings of Nestorius met with strong opposition. The bishop of Alexandria at that time was St. Cyril (from 412), a theologically educated man and a zealous defender of Orthodoxy. First of all, in his Easter message he outlined how harmful the teachings of Nestorius are for Christianity. This did not affect Nestorius, and he continued to defend the correctness of his teaching in letters to Cyril. Then Cyril, with a special message, notified Emperor Theodosius II, his wife Eudoxia and sister Pulcheria about the teachings of Nestorius. He then reported this heresy to Pope Celestine. Nestorius also wrote to Rome. Pope Celestine convened a council in Rome (430), condemned the teachings of Nestorius and demanded that, under threat of excommunication and deposition, he renounce his thoughts within 10 days. The conclusion of the council was sent to Nestorius and the eastern bishops through Cyril, to whom the pope gave his voice. Cyril notified Nestorius and the bishops about the decisions of the Roman Council, and especially convinced John, Archbishop of Antioch, to defend Orthodoxy. If they accept Nestorius’s side, they will give rise to a break with the churches of Alexandria and Rome, which have already spoken out against Nestorius. John, who sympathized with Nestorius’ way of thinking, in view of Cyril’s warning, wrote a friendly letter to Nestorius, in which he urged him to use the expressions about the Blessed Virgin Mary accepted by the ancient fathers.

Meanwhile, Cyril at the Council of Alexandria (430). condemned the teachings of Nestorius and issued 12 anathematisms against him, in which he proved the inseparable union of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Cyril forwarded these anathematisms to Nestoria with his message. Nestorius, for his part, responded with 12 anathematisms, in which he condemned those who attribute suffering to the Divine, etc. They were directed against Cyril, although they do not apply to the latter. The Syrian bishops, having received Cyril's anathematisms, also rebelled against them. They had the point of view of the ideas of Theodore of Mopsuet. Blessed Theodoret, the learned Bishop of Cyrus, wrote a refutation of them. To put an end to such discord between the leaders of famous churches and to establish Orthodox teaching, imp. Theodosius II decided to convene an ecumenical council. Nestorius, whose side Theodosius occupied at that time, himself asked for the convening of an ecumenical council, being convinced that his teaching, as correct, would triumph.

Theodosius appointed a council in Ephesus on the very day of Pentecost 431. This was the Third Ecumenical Council. Cyril with 40 Egyptian bishops, Juvenal of Jerusalem with Palestinian bishops, Firmus, bishop arrived in Ephesus. Caesarea of Cappadocia, Flavian of Thessalonica. Nestorius also arrived with 10 bishops and two senior officials, friends of Nestorius. The first Candidian, as a representative of the emperor, the second Irenaeus - simply as disposed towards Nestorius. Only John of Antioch and the papal legates were missing. After 16 days had passed, the period appointed by the emperor for the opening of the cathedral, Cyril decided to open the cathedral without waiting for those who were absent. The official Candidian protested against this and sent a denunciation to Constantinople. The first meeting was on June 22 at the Church of the Virgin. Nestorius was invited to the council three times. But the first time he gave a vague answer, the second time he answered that he would come when all the bishops had arrived, and the third time he did not even listen to the invitation. Then the council decided to consider the case of Nestorius without him. The Creed of Niceno-Constantinograd, letters to Nestorius, anathematisms of Cyril and letters of Nestorius to Cyril, his conversations, etc. were read.

The fathers found that the messages of Cyril contained Orthodox teaching and, on the contrary, the messages and conversations of Nestorius were non-Orthodox. Then the fathers checked how Nestorius was teaching at the present time, whether he had already abandoned his thoughts. According to the testimony of the bishops who talked with Nestorius in Ephesus, it turned out that he adhered to his previous thoughts. Finally, the sayings of the Church Fathers who wrote about the Face of the Lord Jesus Christ were read. Here, too, Nestorius contradicts them. Taking all this into account, the fathers of the Council of Ephesus recognized the teachings of Nestorius as heretical and determined to deprive him of his dignity and excommunicate him from church communion. 200 bishops signed the verdict and the first meeting ended.

On the same day, the Council of Ephesus announced the deposition of Nestorius and sent notification of this to the clergy in Constantinople. Cyril also wrote letters on his own behalf to the bishops and the abbot of the Constantinople monastery, Abba Dalmatius. Soon the acts of the council were sent to the emperor. Nestorius's sentence was announced the next day after the meeting. He, of course, did not accept it and, in a report to the emperor, complained about the supposedly incorrect actions of the council, accused especially Cyril and Memnon and asked the emperor either to transfer the council to another place, or to give him the opportunity to return safely to Constantinople, because, he complained with his bishops - his life is in danger.

Meanwhile, John of Antioch arrived in Ephesus with 33 Syrian bishops. The fathers of the council notified him not to enter into communication with the condemned Nestorius. But John was not satisfied with the decision of the matter not in favor of Nestorius, and therefore, without entering into communication with Cyril and his council, he formed his own council with Nestorius and the visiting bishops. Several bishops who were at the Council of St. joined John. Kirill. An imperial commissioner also arrived at the Council of John. The Council of John declared the condemnation of Nestorius illegal and began the trial of Cyril, Memnon and other bishops who condemned Nestorius. Cyril was unfairly accused, among other things, that the teaching set forth in his anathematisms was similar to the wickedness of Arius, Apollinaris and Eunomius. And so, the council of John condemned and deposed Cyril and Memnon, excommunicated from church communion, until repentance, the other bishops who condemned Nestorius, reported everything to Constantinople to the emperor, clergy and people, asking the emperor to approve the deposition of Cyril and Memnon. Theodosius, who received, in addition to the reports of Cyril, Nestorius and John, also the report of Candidian, did not know what to do in this case. Finally, he ordered that all the decrees of the councils of Cyril and John be destroyed and that all the bishops who arrived in Ephesus should gather together and end the disputes in a peaceful manner. Cyril could not agree with such a proposal, since the correct decision was made at his council, and John of Antioch represented the actions of his council as correct, which both reported to Constantinople.

While this correspondence was being conducted, the council, chaired by Cyril, continued its meetings, of which there were seven. At the second meeting, the message of Pope Celestine, brought only now by the legates who had arrived, was read, and was recognized as completely Orthodox; in the third, the Roman legates signed the condemnation of Nestorius; in the fourth, Cyril and Memnon, wrongly convicted by John (who did not appear when invited to appear at the hearing) were acquitted; in the fifth, Cyril and Memnon, to refute the accusations brought against them by John, condemned the heresies of Arius, Apollinaris and Eunomius, and the council excommunicated John himself and the Syrian bishops from church communion; in the sixth - it is forbidden for the future to change anything in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol or to compose others instead; finally, in the seventh - the council began to resolve private issues regarding the delimitation of dioceses. All conciliar acts were sent to the emperor for approval.

Now Theodosius was in even greater difficulty than before, because the hostility between the council and the supporters of John had increased to a significant extent. And the nobleman Irenaeus, who arrived in the capital from Ephesus, acted strongly at court in favor of Nestorius. Bishop Akakios of Beria gave the emperor advice, removing Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius from the conciliar deliberations, and instructing all other bishops to reconsider the case of Nestorius. The Emperor did just that. He sent an official to Ephesus, who took Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius into custody, and began to force the other bishops to agree. But there was no agreement. Meanwhile, St. Cyril found an opportunity from prison to write to the clergy and people of Constantinople, as well as to Abba Dalmatius, about what was happening in Ephesus. Abba Dalmatius gathered the monks of the Constantinople monasteries and, together with them, in the presence of a large crowd of people, singing psalms and burning lamps, he went to the emperor’s palace. Entering the palace, Dalmatius asked the emperor that the Orthodox fathers be released from prison and that the council's decision regarding Nestorius be approved.

The appearance of the famous Abba, who had not left his monastery for 48 years, made a strong impression on the emperor. He promised to approve the decision of the council. Then, in the church where Abba Dalmatius went with the monks, the people openly proclaimed anathema to Nestorius. Thus the emperor's hesitation ended. All that remained was to bring the Syrian bishops into agreement with the council. To do this, the emperor ordered the disputing parties to select 8 deputies and send them to Chalcedon for mutual discussions in the presence of the emperor. This delegation from the Orthodox side included two Roman legates and the Bishop of Jerusalem Juvenal. On the part of the defenders of Nestorius are John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus. But even in Chalcedon no agreement was reached, despite the concerns of Theodosius. The Orthodox demanded that the Syrian bishops sign the condemnation of Nestorius, but the Syrian bishops did not agree and did not want to accept, as they put it, Cyril’s dogmas (anathematisms). So the matter remained unresolved. However, Theodosius now decisively went over to the side of the Orthodox bishops. At the end of the Chalcedonian conference, he issued a decree in which he ordered all bishops to return to their sees, including Cyril, and had previously removed Nestorius to the Antioch monastery, from which he had previously been taken to the see of Constantinople. The Orthodox bishops appointed Maximilian, known for his pious life, as Nestorius' successor.

The eastern bishops, led by John of Antioch, departing from Chalcedon and Ephesus to their sees, convened two councils along the way, one in Tarsus, at which they again condemned Cyril and Memnon, and the other in Antioch, at which they composed their confession of faith. In this confession it was said that the Lord Jesus Christ is a perfect God and a perfect man and that on the basis of the unity of Divinity and humanity unfused in Him, the Blessed Virgin Mary can be called the Mother of God. Thus, the Eastern fathers retreated from their Nestorian views, but did not abandon the person of Nestorius, which is why the division between them and Cyril continued. Emperor Theodosius did not lose hope of reconciling the churches and instructed his official Aristolaus to do this. But only Paul, Bishop of Emesa, managed to reconcile the Syrian and Alexandrian fathers. He convinced John of Antioch and other Syrian bishops to agree to the condemnation of Nestorius, and Cyril of Alexandria to sign the Antiochian Confession of Faith. Cyril, seeing that this confession was Orthodox, signed it, but did not renounce his anathematisms. Thus peace was restored. The entire Ecumenical Church agreed with the Antiochian Confession of Faith, as an Orthodox one, and it received the meaning of an exact confession of faith of the ancient Orthodox teaching about the image of the union of two natures in the Lord Jesus Christ and their mutual relationship. The emperor approved this confession and made the final decision regarding Nestorius. He was exiled (435). to an oasis in the Egyptian deserts, where he died (440).

Along with the errors of Nestorius, the heresy that appeared in the West was also condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council Pelagian. Pelagius, a native of Britain, did not accept monasticism, led a strict ascetic life, and, falling into spiritual pride, began to deny original sin, belittling the importance of God's grace in the matter of salvation and attributing all the merits to a virtuous life and man's own strengths. In its further development, Pelagianism led to the denial of the need for atonement and atonement itself. To spread this false teaching, Pelagius arrived in Rome and then in Carthage, but here he met a strong opponent in the person of the famous teacher of the Western Church, Blessed Augustine. Having experienced with his own difficult experience the weakness of the will in the fight against passions, Augustine with all his might refuted the false teaching of the proud Briton and revealed in his creations the great importance of divine grace for doing good and achieving bliss. The condemnation of the heresy of Pelagius was pronounced back in 418 at a local council in Carthage, and was only confirmed by the Third Ecumenical Council.

At the council, all 8 canons were set out. Of these, in addition to the condemnation of the Nestorian heresy, it is important - a complete prohibition not only to compose a new one, but even to supplement or shorten, even in one word, the Symbol set out at the first two Ecumenical Councils.

History of Nestorianism after the Council

Adherents of Nestorius rebelled against John of Antioch for treason and formed a strong party in Syria. Among them was even Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus. He condemned the errors of Nestorius, agreed with Orthodox teaching, but did not want to agree with the condemnation of Nestorius. John of Antioch was forced to strive to destroy the heretical party. His assistant was Rabula, Bishop of Edessa. Having achieved nothing by force of persuasion, John had to turn to the help of civil authorities. The emperor removed several Nestorian bishops from the sees in the Syrian and Mesopotamian churches, but Nestorianism held on.

The main reason for this was not Nestorius himself personally (whom the majority of bishops did not support), but the dissemination of his heretical thoughts in the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuet. They were looked upon in Syria as great teachers of the Church. The Orthodox bishops understood this and therefore began to act against these teachers of Nestorianism. Thus, the Edessa bishop Rabula destroyed the Edessa school, which carried out the ideas of the Antiochian school. At the head of this school was Presbyter Iva, like Theodoret, who agreed to the Antiochian Confession, but suspected Cyril himself of non-Orthodoxy. Iva and other teachers of the Edessa school were expelled. Then Rabula, at a council he organized, condemned the writings of Diodorus and Theodore, which caused great unrest in the Eastern churches. St. himself Cyril, who wished together with Proclus, bishop. Constantinople, solemnly condemning the teachers of Nestorianism, had only to limit his work to a refutation of Theodore of Mopsuet. But this work also caused strong discontent in the east, and objections arose against it. Blessed Theodoret also defended Theodore of Mopsuet. During this struggle, St. died. Cyril (444), and during the same struggle the Syrian Christians with their bishops moved even more away from the Church. Rabula of Edessa died even earlier than Cyril (436). Under the influence of the Nestorian party, the expelled Iva was elected as his successor, who again restored the Edessa school. Iva, by the way, wrote a letter to one Persian bishop, Marius, about events in the Syrian church and about the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius. Censuring Nestorius that with his expression about the Blessed Virgin Mary he gave rise to accusations of heresy, Iva especially rebelled against Cyril, accusing him unjustly of destroying human nature in Jesus Christ, and recognizing only the Divine and thereby renewing the heresy of Apollinaris. This letter was important in further disputes between the Church and heretics. Iva also translated the works of Theodore and Diodorus into Syriac. But the bishop of Nisibia, Thomas Barsuma, who had previously been a teacher at the Edessa school, acted much more in favor of Nestorianism. He enjoyed the favor of the Persian government, to which Nisibia then belonged and which, according to its political views, approved of the separation of the Persian Christians from the Christians of the empire. In 489, the Edessa school was again destroyed. Teachers and students went to Persia and founded a school in Nizibia, which became a hotbed of Nestorianism.

In 499, the Bishop of Seleucia, Babaeus, a Nestorian, convened a council in Seleucia, at which Nestorianism was approved and the separation of the Persian Church from the Greco-Roman Empire was formally declared. The Nestorians began to be called by their liturgical language Chaldean Christians. They had their own patriarch, called Catholicos. In addition to dogmatic differences, the Nestorian Persian Church allowed differences in its church structure. So, she allowed marriage not only for priests, but also for bishops. From Persia, Nestorianism spread to India. This is where they got their name Christian Fomites, named ap. Thomas.

Fourth Ecumenical Council

The fourth ecumenical council - Chalcedon - is directly related to the history of the third ecumenical council - Ephesus (writes Bishop John of Aksai). We know that the main figure in the education and protection of Orthodox teaching at the 3rd Ecumenical Council was St. Kirill, Archbishop Alexandrian. The main culprit of all the troubles was Eutyches, Archimandrite. Constantinople, who was a devotee of St. Kirill. Saint Cyril, respecting Eutyches, sent him a copy of the acts of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. But just as it happens in other cases that inspiration goes to extremes, so here is zeal for the theological judgments of St. Kirilla crossed the line. The high theology of St. Cyril was not understood and Eutyches degenerated into a false teaching; a new system of Monophysitism was built, which asserted that in Jesus Christ there were not two natures, but one. When it came to explanations with Eutyches at the council, he expressed his teaching as follows: “After the incarnation of God the Word, I worship one nature, the nature of God incarnate and made man; I confess that our Lord consists of two natures before the union, and after the union I confess one nature" (History of Ecumenical Councils).

Heretical Monophysite shared the doctrine Dioscorus, who took the See of Alexandria after Cyril. Dioscorus was supported by Emperor Theodosius II, who valued him as a fighter against Nestorianism. Eutyches was revered by the court party led by Empress Eudoxia. On the advice of this party, Eutychius transferred his case to the court of the churches of Rome and Alexandria, presenting himself as a defender of Orthodox teaching, and Flavian and Eusebius, bishop. Dorilean by the Nestorians. Pope Leo the Great, aware of everything by Flavian, agreed to the condemnation of Eutyches. Dioscorus, taking the side of the latter, asked the emperor to convene an ecumenical council to approve the pseudo-Orthodox teaching of Eutyches and condemn Nestorianism, allegedly revived by Flavian. Theodosius II appointed a council in Ephesus in 449, chaired by Dioscorus.

127 bishops were present at the council in person and 8 had representatives. The Pope sent a “dogmatic letter”, famous for its purity of understanding of the truth and clarity of presentation (epistola dogmatica). Three of his legates were in session. Council meetings began on the case of Eutyches. Dioscorus did not read out the pope’s message and was content with Eutyches’ confession of faith and the statement that the two natures in Christ were not discussed at previous ecumenical councils. Dioscorus declared Flavian a heretic and defrocked, as did Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Domnus of Antioch and Theodore of Cyrus. Out of fear of violence, 114 bishops agreed with them. The Roman legates refused to vote.

“When Flavian left the cathedral hall,” writes Bishop. Arseny, “the Syrian archimandrite Varsuma and other monks attacked him, and beat him so much that he soon died on the way to the town of Lydia, the place of his imprisonment.”

Flavian's successor was Anatoly, a priest and Dioscorus' confidant under the emperor. In the yard. The emperor, deceived by his courtiers, confirmed all the definitions of the Ephesian “council of robbers.”

The Pope acted as the defender of Orthodoxy St. Leo the Great. At the council in Rome, everything decreed in Ephesus was condemned. The Pope, in letters to the east, demanded the convening of a legitimate ecumenical council in Italy. At his request, the deputy also demanded the same. Emperor Valentian III. But Theodosius was under the influence of the Monophysite court party, especially Theodoxia, and therefore did not heed the requests. Then, the court party lost its importance, the empress was removed under the pretext of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The party of Theodosius's sister, Pulcheria, an admirer of Patriarch Flavian, gained importance. His relics were solemnly transferred to Constantinople. Theodosius died soon after (450). His successor was Marcian, who married Pulcheria.

IN Chalcedon the legal one was convened 4th Ecumenical Cathedral. There were 630 of all the fathers on it. Of the most remarkable were: Anatoly of Constantinople, who took the side of the Orthodox, Domnus of Antioch (deposed by Dioscorus and returned by Marcian), Maximus, put in his place, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea-Cappadocia, Blessed Theodoret, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Dioscorus of Alexandria and others. The pope, who wanted a council in Italy, nevertheless sent his legates to Chalcedon. The chairman of the council was Anatoly of Constantinople. The first thing the fathers did was to consider the acts robber Council and the trial of Dioscorus. His accuser was the famous Eusebius of Dorylaeus, who presented the fathers with a note outlining all the violence of Dioscorus at the robber council. Having familiarized themselves, the fathers took away the right to vote from Dioscorus, after which he was included in the list of defendants. In addition, the Egyptian bishops brought many accusations against him, who spoke about the immorality and cruelty of Dioscorus and his various types of violence. Having discussed all this, the fathers condemned him and deposed him, just as they condemned the robber council and Eutyches. Those bishops who took part in the council of robbers were forgiven by the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, since they repented and explained in their justification that they acted under the threat of Dioscorus.

Then the fathers set about defining the doctrine. They had to set forth such a doctrine of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, which would be alien to the extremes of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The teaching between these extremes was precisely Orthodox. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon did just that. Taking as a model the statement of faith of St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, as well as the letter of Pope Leo to Flavian, they thus defined the dogma about the image of the union of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ: “following the divine fathers, we all unanimously teach to confess ..... one and the same but Christ, the Son, the only begotten Lord, in two natures, unmerged, unchangeable, inseparable, inseparable, cognizable (not like the difference between two natures consumed by the union, but rather the preserved property of each nature into one person and one hypostasis of the united): not into two persons cut or divided, but one and the same Son and the only begotten God the Word. "This definition of faith was condemned as Nestorianism, so is Monophysitism. All the fathers agreed with this definition. Blessed Theodoret, who at the council was suspected of being a Nestorian, especially by the Egyptian bishops, pronounced an anathema on Nestorius and signed his condemnation. Therefore, the council lifted the condemnation of Dioscorus from him and restored him to the rank, as well as removed condemnation of Iva, Bishop of Edessa. Only the Egyptian bishops behaved ambiguously in relation to the definition of religion. Although they signed the condemnation of Eutyches, they did not want to sign the epistles of Leo of Rome to Flavian, under the pretext that, according to the custom existing in Egypt, they had nothing important they do not do it without the permission and determination of their archbishop, whom, due to the deposition of Dioscorus, they did not have. The council obliged them to sign an oath when an archbishop was installed. - When they informed Marcian that everything had been done, he himself arrived at the council for the 6th meeting, made a speech in which he expressed his joy that everything was done according to the common desire and peacefully. However, the meetings of the council were not over yet. The fathers began to compile 30 rules. The main subjects of the rules are church administration and church deanery.

After the council, the emperor issued strict laws regarding the Monophysites. Everyone was ordered to accept the teaching determined by the Council of Chalcedon; Monophysites should be exiled or exiled; burn their works, execute them for distributing them, etc. Dioscorus and Eutyches were exiled to distant provinces."

The Council of Chalcedon approved the decisions of not only the three previous Ecumenical Councils, but also local ones: Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch and Laodicea, which took place in the 4th century. From that time on, the leading bishops in the main five church districts began to be called patriarchs, and the most noble metropolitans, deprived of some rights of independence, were given the title of exarch as an honorable distinction: for example, Ephesus, Caesarea, Irakli.

Bishop Arseny, noting this, adds: “The name was found before; so Emperor Theodosius in a letter of 449 called the Bishop of Rome Patriarch. At the 2nd meeting of the Council of Chalcedon, the imperial representatives said: “Let the most holy patriarchs of each district elect two from the district for discussions about faith." From here we see that this name has already come into official use. As for the name "pope", in Egypt and Carthage the common people called the leading bishops that way, and the rest were "fathers", and these " "grandfathers" (popes). From Africa this name passed to Rome."

Monophysite heresy after the council

The Monophysite heresy brought more evil to the Church than any other heresy. Conciliar condemnation could not destroy it. The Monophysites, especially the Egyptians, really did not like the doctrine of two natures in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the main thing about humanity. Many monks in other churches were also against this teaching and joined the ranks of the Monophysites. It seemed impossible to them to attribute to the Lord Jesus Christ a human nature similar to our sinful nature, against the shortcomings of which all their exploits were directed. Even during the Council of Chalcedon, the monastics sent three archimandrites who undertook to defend the Monophysite teaching and asked for the restoration of Dioscorus. After the council, some of the monks went straight from Chalcedon to Palestine and caused great confusion there with stories that the Council of Chalcedon had restored Nestorianism. Ten thousand Palestinian monks, led by people from Chalcedon, attacked Jerusalem, plundered it, drove out Patriarch Juvenal, and installed their own Theodosius in his place. Only two years later (453), with the help of military force, Juvenal again took the throne of Jerusalem. The Monophysites organized similar unrest in Alexandria. Here, too, military force came to nothing. The mob drove the soldiers into the former temple of Serapis and burned them alive along with the temple. Strengthened military measures led to the final separation of the Monophysites from the Orthodox Patriarch Proterius, who was installed in the place of Dioscorus, and the creation of a separate society under the leadership of the presbyter Timothy Elur.

Taking advantage of the death of Emperor Marcian (457), the Alexandrian Monophysites staged a riot, during which Proterius was killed, and Elur was erected in his place, who deposed all the bishops of the Council of Chalcedon, and condemned the patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch and Rome. Marcian's successor, Leo 1 Thracian (457-474). could not immediately suppress the uprising in Alexandria. To restore peace in the Church, he decided on a special measure: he demanded that all the metropolitans of the empire give him their feedback on the Council of Chalcedon and whether Elur should be recognized as the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria. More than 1,600 metropolitans and bishops spoke in favor of the Council of Chalcedon and against Timothy Elur.

Then Leo deposed Elur (460). and installed the Orthodox Timothy Salafakiol as Patriarch of Alexandria. The piety and meekness of this patriarch earned him the love and respect of the Monophysites, and the Alexandrian Church was calm for some time. He was also deposed (470). Patriarch of Antioch Peter Gnathevs. While still a monk, he formed a strong Monophysite party in Antioch, forced the Orthodox patriarch to leave the see and took it himself. In order to establish Monophysitism forever in Antioch, in the Trisagion Song, after the words: Holy Immortal- made a Monophysite addition - crucified for us.

But then, in 476, the imperial throne was occupied by Basilisk, who took it from Leo Zeno. To strengthen himself on the throne with the help of the Monophysites, Basilisk took their side. He issued a district message in which, condemning the Council of Chalcedon and the letter of Leo to Flavian, he ordered that only the Nicene symbol and the definitions of the second and third ecumenical councils confirming this symbol be adhered to. All the bishops of the empire had to sign such a letter, and indeed many signed, some out of conviction, others out of fear. At the same time, Timothy Elur and Peter Gnafevs were restored to their sees, and the Orthodox patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were removed. The restoration of Monophysitism caused great unrest among the Orthodox, especially in Constantinople. Here Patriarch Akakios stood at the head of the Orthodox. Basilisk, wanting to prevent unrest that threatened even his throne, issued another district message, canceling the first, but it was too late. Zeno, with the help of the Orthodox, especially Acacius, defeated Basilisk and took the imperial throne (477). Now the Orthodox again gained an advantage over the Monophysites. After the death of Elur, the department was again occupied by Timofey Salafakiol. But Zeno wanted not only the victory of the Orthodox, but also the accession of the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church. He understood that religious divisions had a bad effect on the welfare of the state. Patriarch Akakiy also sympathized with him in this. But these attempts to join the Monophysites, begun by Zeno and continued into the next reign, only led to unrest in the Church, and were finally resolved by a new heresy.

In 484, the Patriarch of Alexandria Timothy Salafakiol died. In his place, the Orthodox chose John Talaya, and the Monophysites chose Peter Mong, who began to work diligently in Constantinople for his approval, and, by the way, proposed a plan for the annexation of the Monophysites. Zeno and Patriarch Acacius agreed to his plan. And so, in 482, Zeno issued a conciliatory definition of faith, on the basis of which communication was to be established between the Orthodox and Monophysites. It affirmed the Nicene Symbol (confirmed by the Second Ecumenical Council), anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches with like-minded people, and adopted 12 anathematisms of St. Cyril, it was argued that the only begotten Son of God, who descended and became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin Mary, is one, and not two: one both in miracles and in the sufferings that he endured voluntarily in the flesh; finally, anathema was pronounced against those who thought or are now thinking anything other than what was approved at the Council of Chalcedon or another. Zeno wanted to achieve unity by keeping silent about the natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and by ambiguous expressions about the Council of Chalcedon. Such a conciliatory confession of religion was accepted by Patriarch Akakios, Peter Mong, who received the See of Alexandria for this, and Peter Gnafevs, who again occupied the See of Antioch. But at the same time, this conciliatory confession did not satisfy either the strict Orthodox or the strict Monophysites. The Orthodox suspected it to be a recognition of Monophysitism, and they demanded an explicit condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon. Not approved by the emperor at the See of Alexandria, John Talaya went to Rome with complaints to Pope Felix II about Acacius, who accepted the enoticon. Felix, feeling completely independent of Constantinople after the fall of the Western Empire (476), condemned the enoticon as a heretical creed, excommunicated Acacius and all the bishops who accepted the enoticon, as well as Zeno himself, and even broke off communication with the Eastern churches. Strict Monophysites, for their part, rebelled against their patriarchs Gnafevs and Mong for accepting the enoticon, separating from them and forming a separate Monophysite society acephalites(headless).

Under Zeno's successor Anastasia (491-518). things were in the same position. Anastasius demanded that everyone accept the enoticon. But the Orthodox have already realized that lenient measures towards heretics do not bring good consequences and even cause damage to Orthodoxy, so they began to abandon the enoticon. Anastasius began to pursue them, and, apparently, had already gone over to the side of the Monophysites. Meanwhile, among the acephalites, ardent champions of Monophysitism appeared - Xenaius (Philoxenus), Bishop of Hierapolis in Syria, and Severus, Patriarch of Antioch. Severus, for the success of Monophysitism in Constantinople, suggested that Anastasius make an addition to the Trisagion Song: crucified for us. Patriarch Macedonius of Constantinople, fearing exile, was forced to obey the order of the emperor. But the people, having learned about this, staged a riot in Constantinople. Although Anastasius managed to temporarily calm the people and even exile Patriarch Macedonius into captivity, an open war soon began between the Orthodox and the tsar. The leader of the Orthodox Vitalian, with his victories, forced Anastasius to promise to convene a council to confirm the holiness of the Council of Chalcedon and restore communication with Rome. Anastasius soon died (518), having failed to fulfill his promises.

Under his successor Justin (518-27), the patron of Orthodoxy, it again gained predominance. Relations with the Roman Church were resumed (519). under the new Patriarch John of Cappadocia; the importance of the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed, the Monophysite bishops were deposed, etc.

At the end of the reign of Emperor Theodosius II, during which the Third Ecumenical Council took place, a new church turmoil occurred in Constantinople.

The head of one of the capital's monasteries, Archimandrite Eutyches, who actively opposed the heresy of Nestorius, who rebelled against the dogma of the God-manhood of the Lord Jesus Christ, fell to the other extreme. He argued that in Jesus Christ, during the hypostatic union, human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine. That it has lost everything characteristic of human nature, except for the visible image. According to the heretic, after the hypostatic union in Jesus Christ, only one Divine nature remained, which lived on earth in a visible bodily form, suffered, died and was resurrected. This teaching received the name Monophysitism (from the Greek “monos” - one, “physis” - nature).

To protect the Church from the spread of this false teaching, in 448, Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople convened a Council, at which the teaching of Eutyches was condemned by the majority of bishops. However, this did not stop the heretic. He had support at the court of the emperor and was in close ties with the heretic Dioscorus, the successor of St. Cyril at the patriarchal see of Alexandria. Eutyches appealed to the emperor with a complaint about the injustice of the condemnation and demanded the trial of the Ecumenical Council over his opponents, whom he suspected of Nestorianism. Wanting to reconcile the Church, Theodosius allowed the convening of an Ecumenical Council in Ephesus in 449.

In church chronicles this Council is called the “Robber Council”. Dioscorus, appointed by the emperor as chairman of the Council, acted as a dictator, using threats and imposing his will on those gathered. Eutyches' acquittal occurred under pressure from secular authorities and caused a storm of protests. Troops were brought into the meeting room, and many Orthodox Christians were injured. The Archbishop of Constantinople, Saint Flavian, was beaten and died three days later from his wounds. Eutyches' victory was short-lived. After the sudden death in 450 of Emperor Theodosius II, who had no children, the closest heir to the throne was his sister Pulcheria, a supporter of Orthodoxy. Realizing that she alone would not be able to retain power in her hands, Pulcheria invited Senator Marcian to formally marry her on the condition that she would still remain a virgin. She proclaimed him emperor and invested him with power herself.

The first priority for the Orthodox Empress was the pacification of the Church. In Constantinople it was clearly understood that in order to overthrow the party of Dioscorus and put an end to the heresy of Eutyches, it was necessary to reconvene the Council.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council took place in 451 in Chalcedon. 630 bishops were present. The Chairman of the Council was Patriarch Anatoly of Constantinople.

The Fathers of the Council began, first of all, to consider the acts of the “robber” council of 449 in Ephesus and the trial of Dioscorus. The prosecutor was Eusebius of Dorylaeus, who presented a note outlining all the violence carried out by Dioscorus at the “robber” council. After reading the note, the fathers took away the right to vote from Dioscorus, after which he was to be included in the list of defendants. In addition, some Egyptian bishops made many accusations of immorality, cruelty and violence against Dioscorus.

The council condemned and deposed Dioscorus. Both the acts of the “robber” council and the heretic Eutyches himself were condemned. Taking as a model the Orthodox presentation of the faith of Archbishops Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, as well as the message of Pope Leo of Rome, the holy fathers defined a dogma about the image of the union of two natures in the person of Jesus Christ.

“Following the Holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach,” said the final resolution of the Council, “that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, one and the same perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity, true God and true Man, like us in everything except sin; born of the Father before the ages according to the Divinity, but He was born in the last days for our sake and our salvation from the Virgin Mary and the Mother of God according to humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only Begotten, knowable in two natures unmerged, unchangeable, indivisible, inseparable... He is not cut or divided into two persons, but He is one and the same Only Begotten Son, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; just as the prophets of ancient times spoke about Him and as Jesus Christ Himself taught us, and how the Symbol of the Fathers conveyed to us."

This definition of religion condemned both Nestorianism and Monophysitism. After the Council, the emperor issued strict laws regarding the Monophysites. Everyone was obliged to accept the teachings defined by the Council of Chalcedon. It was decided to exile the Monophysites into captivity or expel them; their writings should be burned, and if they were distributed, they would be executed.

The Council of Chalcedon did not put an end to all Christological disputes, but its definition of faith became the solid foundation of Eastern Orthodoxy for all times.

"Museum of Four Cathedrals"

Three centuries of architecture in St. Petersburg today are represented by four unique temple-monuments: Sampsonievsky and Smolny Cathedrals (XVIII century), St. Isaac's Cathedral (XIX century) and the Church of the Resurrection of Christ (Savior on Spilled Blood) (early XX century). They are united by the museum complex “State Museum-Monument “St. Isaac’s Cathedral” - a multifunctional museum institution that creates in visitors a feeling of the special atmosphere of the modern museum of St. Petersburg. These objects are the calling card of the Northern capital, generally recognized all-Russian cultural centers, operating as multifunctional museum institutions of the 21st century. Over the past five years, the museum's infrastructure has been expanding, new information technologies are being introduced, and large-scale architectural projects are being implemented aimed at restoring and recreating the unique historical appearance of cathedrals.

These cultural institutions were created in inextricable connection with the location and purpose of the above-mentioned buildings. It is museums that present churches as outstanding monuments of Orthodox culture, architecture and Russian history, which attract about three million visitors a year.

Saint Isaac's Cathedral

Built by the architect Auguste Montferrand, St. Isaac's Cathedral is an outstanding monument of late Russian classicism from the mid-19th century and one of the world's greatest domed structures. Its monumental and majestic image serves as the same calling card of the Northern capital as the spire of the Peter and Paul Fortress Cathedral and the golden ship of the Admiralty.

The interior decoration of the cathedral is remarkable, in which all types of monumental and decorative art are presented - painting, sculpture, mosaics, colored facing stones. The main iconostasis of the cathedral is decorated with malachite and lapis lazuli columns; in the main altar there is a stained glass window “The Risen Christ”, which is unconventional for the decoration of an Orthodox church.

Sampson's Cathedral

The miraculously preserved Sampsonievsky Cathedral is a monument to the Poltava victory of 1709 and one of the masterpieces of Anninsky Baroque.

Of particular value is the main attraction of the temple - the carved gilded iconostasis, made in the best traditions of Russian wooden sculpture and carving of the first half of the 18th century. A rare collection of icon paintings from the first half of the eighteenth century has been preserved. On the walls of the cathedral's bell tower there are cast iron boards with the texts of the speeches and orders of Peter I.

The decoration of this temple, the memorial cemetery, the monument to the “enemies of Biron” require especially careful treatment of this museum object, a memorial to the courage of Russian soldiers and the skill of Russian architects, carvers and icon painters.

Smolny Cathedral

The majestic Smolny Cathedral began to be built by Francesco Bartolomeo Rastrelli during the reign of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, and it was completed by V.P. Stasov under Emperor Nicholas I.

It was during the period when construction began, by decree of Empress Elizabeth, that the five-domed church, the traditional veil of the Orthodox Church, was restored in the northern capital.

In terms of its picturesqueness, expressiveness of composition, and external decoration, the Smolny Cathedral is one of the pinnacles of world architecture.

Smolny Cathedral is a large exhibition and concert complex equipped with the most modern stage equipment. The Chamber Choir of the Smolny Cathedral is one of the most famous choral groups in St. Petersburg.

Savior on Spilled Blood

Savior on Spilled Blood (Church of the Resurrection of Christ) is an architectural dominant of the center of St. Petersburg, a unique monument erected on the site of the mortal wound of Emperor Alexander II the Liberator.

Here you can see the largest collection of mosaics in Russia (more than 7000 sq. m), made according to sketches by Russian artists of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, Italian colored marble, Ural and Altai ornamental stones, as well as a mosaic collection of Russian heraldry.

Fourth Ecumenical Council

The fourth ecumenical council - Chalcedon - is directly connected with the history of the third ecumenical council - Ephesus (writes Bishop John of Aksai). We know that the main figure in the education and protection of Orthodox teaching at the 3rd Ecumenical Council was St. Kirill, Archbishop Alexandrian. The main culprit of all the troubles was Eutyches, Archimandrite. Constantinople, who was a devotee of St. Kirill. Saint Cyril, respecting Eutyches, sent him a copy of the acts of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. But just as it happens in other cases that inspiration goes to extremes, so here is zeal for the theological judgments of St. Kirilla crossed the line. The high theology of St. Cyril was not understood and Eutyches degenerated into a false teaching; a new system of Monophysitism was built, which asserted that in Jesus Christ there were not two natures, but one. When it came to explanations with Eutyches at the council, he expressed his teaching as follows: “After the incarnation of God the Word, I worship one nature, the nature of God incarnate and made man; I confess that our Lord consists of two natures before the union, and after the union I confess one nature” (History of Ecumenical Councils).

127 bishops were present at the council in person and 8 had representatives. The Pope sent a “dogmatic letter”, famous for its purity of understanding of the truth and clarity of presentation (epistola dogmatica). Three of his legates were in session. Council meetings began on the case of Eutyches. Dioscorus did not read out the pope’s message and was content with Eutyches’ confession of faith and the statement that the two natures in Christ were not discussed at previous ecumenical councils. Dioscorus declared Flavian a heretic and defrocked, as well as Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Domnus of Antioch and Theodore of Cyrus. Out of fear of violence, 114 bishops agreed with them. The Roman legates refused to vote.

“When Flavian left the cathedral hall,” writes Bishop. Arseny, “the Syrian archimandrite Varsum and other monks attacked him, and beat him so much that he soon died on the way to the town of Lydia, the place of his imprisonment.”

IN Chalcedon the legal one was convened 4th Ecumenical Council. There were 630 of all the fathers on it. Of the most remarkable were: Anatoly of Constantinople, who took the side of the Orthodox, Domnus of Antioch (deposed by Dioscorus and returned by Marcian), Maximus, put in his place, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea-Cappadocia, Blessed Theodoret, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Dioscorus of Alexandria and others. The pope, who wanted a council in Italy, nevertheless sent his legates to Chalcedon. The chairman of the council was Anatoly of Constantinople. The first thing the fathers did was to consider the acts robber Council and the trial of Dioscorus. His accuser was the famous Eusebius of Dorylaeus, who presented the fathers with a note outlining all the violence of Dioscorus at the robber council. Having familiarized themselves, the fathers took away the right to vote from Dioscorus, after which he was included in the list of defendants. In addition, the Egyptian bishops brought many accusations against him, who spoke about the immorality and cruelty of Dioscorus and his various types of violence. Having discussed all this, the fathers condemned him and deposed him, just as they condemned the robber council and Eutyches. Those bishops who took part in the council of robbers were forgiven by the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, since they repented and explained in their justification that they acted under the threat of Dioscorus.

Then the fathers set about defining the doctrine. They had to set forth such a doctrine of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, which would be alien to the extremes of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The teaching between these extremes was precisely Orthodox. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon did just that. Taking as a model the statement of faith of St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, as well as the letter of Pope Leo of Rome to Flavian, they thus defined the dogma about the image of the union of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ: “following the divine fathers, we all unanimously teach to confess ..... one and the same but Christ, the Son, the only begotten Lord, in two natures, unmerged, unchangeable, inseparable, inseparable, cognizable (not like the difference of two natures consumed by the union, but more so the preserved property of each nature into one person and one hypostasis copulated): not into two persons cut or divided, but one and the same Son and the only begotten God the Word.” This definition of religion condemned both Nestorianism and Monophysitism. All fathers agreed with this definition. Blessed Theodoret, who was suspected of Nestorianism at the council, especially by the Egyptian bishops, pronounced an anathema against Nestorius and signed his condemnation. Therefore, the council lifted the condemnation of Dioscorus from him and restored him to his rank, just as it lifted the condemnation from Iva, Bishop of Edessa. Only the Egyptian bishops behaved ambiguously in relation to the definition of religion. Although they signed the condemnation of Eutyches, they did not want to sign the letters of Leo of Rome to Flavian, under the pretext that, according to the custom existing in Egypt, they do nothing important without the permission and determination of their archbishop, who, in connection with the deposition of Dioscorus, they didn't have. The council obliged them to sign an oath when an archbishop was installed. - When they informed Marcian that everything had been done, he himself arrived at the council for the 6th meeting, made a speech in which he expressed his joy that everything was done according to the common desire and peacefully. However, the meetings of the council were not over yet. The fathers began to compile 30 rules. The main subjects of the rules are church administration and church deanery.

Bishop Arseny, noting this, adds: “The name has been encountered before; so imp. Theodosius, in a letter of 449, named the Bishop of Rome Patriarch. At the 2nd meeting of Chalcedon. At the council, the imperial representatives said: “let the most holy patriarchs of each district elect two from the district to discuss the faith.” From this we see that this name has already come into official use. As for the name “pope,” in Egypt and Carthage the common people called the leading bishops that way, while others were “fathers,” and these were “grandfathers” (popes). From Africa this name passed to Rome.”

Monophysite heresy after the council.

Taking advantage of the death of Emperor Marcian (457), the Alexandrian Monophysites staged a riot, during which Proterius was killed, and Elur was erected in his place, who deposed all the bishops of the Council of Chalcedon, and condemned the patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch and Rome. Marcian's successor, Leo 1 Thracian (457-474) could not immediately suppress the uprising in Alexandria. To restore peace in the Church, he decided on a special measure: he demanded that all the metropolitans of the empire give him their feedback on the Council of Chalcedon and whether Elur should be recognized as the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria. More than 1,600 metropolitans and bishops spoke in favor of the Council of Chalcedon and against Timothy Elur.

Then Leo deposed Elur (460) and installed the Orthodox Timothy Salafakiol as Patriarch of Alexandria. The piety and meekness of this patriarch earned him the love and respect of the Monophysites, and the Alexandrian Church was calm for some time. The Patriarch of Antioch, Peter Gnathevs, was also deposed (470). While still a monk, he formed a strong Monophysite party in Antioch, forced the Orthodox patriarch to leave the see and took it himself. In order to establish Monophysitism forever in Antioch, in the trisagion hymn, after the words: holy immortal - he made the Monophysit addition - crucified for us.

Under Zeno's successor Anastasia (491-518), things were in the same situation. Anastasius demanded that everyone accept the enoticon. But the Orthodox have already realized that lenient measures towards heretics do not bring good consequences and even cause damage to Orthodoxy, so they began to abandon the enoticon. Anastasius began to pursue them, and, apparently, had already gone over to the side of the Monophysites. Meanwhile, among the acephalites, ardent champions of Monophysitism appeared - Xenaius (Philoxenus), Bishop of Hierapolis in Syria, and Severus, Patriarch of Antioch. North, for the success of Monophysitism in Constantinople, suggested that Anastasius add an addition to the trisagion hymn: crucified for us. Patriarch Macedonius of Constantinople, fearing exile, was forced to obey the order of the emperor. But the people, having learned about this, staged a riot in Constantinople. Although Anastasius managed to temporarily calm the people and even exile Patriarch Macedonius into captivity, an open war soon began between the Orthodox and the tsar. The leader of the Orthodox Vitalian, with his victories, forced Anastasius to promise to convene a council to confirm the holiness of the Council of Chalcedon and restore communication with Rome. Anastasius soon died (518), having failed to fulfill his promises.

Under his successor Justin (518-27), the patron of Orthodoxy, it again gained predominance. Relations with the Roman Church were resumed (519) under the new Patriarch John of Cappadocia; the importance of the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed, the Monophysite bishops were deposed, etc.

He was represented by two bishops: Paschasinus and Lucinsius. The Council issued 30 rules.

Review of council meetings

The general direction of the council was largely clarified already at the first meeting, when the personal status of Dioscorus of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus, the main exponent of the views of the “eastern” or Antiochian group, was discussed. The papal legates demanded the expulsion of Dioscorus because he had insulted Pope Leo, while the Egyptians and their allies bitterly protested the presence of Theodoret, who had criticized St. Cyril. Imperial officials refused both. It was decided to seat both Dioscorus and Theodoret in the middle of the temple, like accused persons who, with full right to speak, must defend themselves. This was reasonable not only for reasons of justice, but also in connection with the main goal of the policy of Marcian and Pulcheria: to restore harmony within the imperial Church, centered around the two imperial capitals, Rome and Constantinople. This solution to the procedural issue led to the fact that the meeting was almost completely occupied by a long reading of the protocol of the Council of Constantinople, which condemned Eutyches (448), and the protocol of the “Robber” Council (449). The reading was constantly interrupted by stormy shouts from bishops of different factions. Former members of the “robber” council, who signed the condemnation of Flavian and indirectly offended Leo with their refusal to read his message, tried to justify themselves, either accusing Dioscorus of blackmail and violence, or acting more honestly and asking the council for forgiveness. The most compromised among them was probably Juvenal of Jerusalem, who, together with Dioscorus, was co-chairman of the “Robber” Council. In Chalcedon, he made an excuse of ignorance,3 and, making an eloquent gesture, stood up from his place next to the friends of Dioscorus and went over to the Antiochians and Constantinoples. Dioscorus took a restrained and dignified position, expressing understandable irony towards the bishops who supported him in 449, but now sided with his accusers. However, he encountered difficulty justifying his position in 449, especially regarding the rehabilitation of Eutyches. He very clearly expressed his own doctrinal position, which remained the position of the majority of opponents of the Council of Chalcedon: Christ is fully God and fully Man, and therefore He has “two natures,” but after their union it is no longer possible to talk about “two natures” existing separately one from the other, since their union into a single being is a perfect union. Dioscorus, of course, did not allow the use of the Greek word phisis ("nature") to designate anything other than "concrete reality." Moreover, as both he and his supporters pointed out, Saint Cyril used the expression “the one nature of God the Word incarnate” and never definitely spoke of two natures after their union. Based on this Cyril fundamentalism, Dioscorus believed that the condemnation of Flavian in 449. was fair: Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, the official accuser of Eutyches in 448, spoke of “two natures after the Incarnation” and therefore de facto were “Nestorians.” However, in Chalcedon, the majority argued that Dioscorus was wrong in seeing a contradiction between Cyril and Flavian.

Imperial officials in their final speech expressed their conviction that Flavian’s condemnation was unjust and therefore those who agreed with him were those who headed the “Robber” Council, Dioscorus, Juvenalius (his transition had not yet helped him!), Thalassius Caesarea and others must be deposed. However, officials also said that such an action, which requires a fresh mind and free discussion, should be postponed until the next meeting. The meeting ended with the singing of "Holy God! Holy Mighty One! Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us." This is the first known instance of this chant being sung, which would become so popular but also controversial in subsequent centuries.

Realizing that his position did not have the slightest chance of triumphing at the council, Dioscorus of Alexandria did not appear at other meetings. His deposition took place in his absence at the third meeting, but only after he had been personally summoned three times. In addition, which is very significant, the decree on his deposition speaks only of disciplinary and canonical sins, and not of heresy. The official message sent to him is as follows: “Know that for the fact that you despised the canons and disobeyed the present Holy and Ecumenical Council, without taking into account other crimes of which you are guilty, since, according to the canons, having been called three times by the real Saint and By the Great Council, did not agree to give an answer to the accusations brought against you, you were deposed from the episcopacy and deprived of all ecclesiastical rank by this Holy and Ecumenical Council of this October 13th.”4 The purely disciplinary, and not doctrinal, nature of the deposition will be duly noted by Anatoly of Constantinople (who knew Dioscorus well, for he was his representative - apocrisiary - in the capital) at the decisive moment of the debate at the fifth meeting. The real purpose of his speech was to assert that even if Dioscorus accused Flavian of heresy for professing “two natures after their union,” then his own, Cyril’s terminology was not necessarily heretical5. From this it is clear that there was no moment when the Council of Chalcedon retreated from its Cyril position, which it defended at all costs, even going against the tide represented by the Roman legates. Of all the participants in the “robber” council, only Dioscorus was deposed. True, everyone else, including Juvenal of Jerusalem, not only repented, but also signed the deposition of Dioscorus.

Loyalty to Cyril was emphasized with invariable clarity at the third and fifth meetings, when the question of a new doctrinal definition arose. The need for a new definition was expressed by imperial officials at the beginning of the second meeting, and this initially caused almost universal discontent. Indeed, the papal legates received instructions from Pope Leo to insist that the Epistle to Flavian was already a sufficient expression of Orthodoxy and that there was no need for further debate, but only a formal acceptance of the “faith of Peter.” In general, reluctance to issue doctrinal definitions was a general trend. The Eastern bishops themselves - including Dioscorus and his followers - preferred to consider the Nicene Creed as a completely sufficient expression of Orthodoxy. In any case, neither the First Council of Ephesus (431) nor the Second ("The Robber", 449) issued any confessions of faith, but only condemned actual or alleged Nestorians in the name of the Nicene faith6. Moreover, the First Council of Ephesus approved a resolution (later included as Canon 7) prohibiting “the presentation, composition or writing of any statement of faith other than that which was determined by the holy fathers at Nicaea with the Holy Spirit.”7 This decree was constantly referred to by the Alexandrians, who had not yet recognized the Council of Constantinople of 381. and the Creed attributed to him, which was in reality an extension of the Nicene Creed. The Alexandrian Church defined Orthodoxy as strict adherence only to the Council of Nicea, rejecting the Council of 381. and the Creed attributed to him. At the Council of Chalcedon it was attributed to this council for the first time8; this suggested that the Ephesian decree was only a special statement, unrelated to the issue discussed at Chalcedon9.

The officials' demand for a doctrinal definition was completely in agreement with the position of the Empire in relation to the Ecumenical Councils: the emperor convened such meetings for the express purpose of receiving clear instructions for his policy to ensure the unity of the Church. In 451 a mere reference to the authority of Nicea was clearly insufficient to achieve such clarity, since it was invoked by opposing parties, each of which claimed allegiance to it precisely for its own convictions. A sensible tactic of the officials was to have all the various documents (supposedly reflecting the "ancient faith") read and thus the bishops themselves would recognize the need to eliminate the existing contradictions.

What was to be read were the two Creeds, Nicene and Constantinople, the two "Epistle" of St. Cyril to Nestorius, the conciliatory "Epistle" of Cyril to John of Antioch (433) and the Tomos of Leo to Flavian. The bishops unanimously welcomed both Symbols and Cyril's messages. However, the bishops of Illyricum (theoretically subordinate to the papal vicar in Thessalonica) and Palestine objected to some of the expressions of Pope Leo's Tomos, seeing in them a contradiction with the faith of St. Cyril. This was the main question: it confirmed the need expressed by officials to develop a new definition that would suit both Rome and the Cyril majority of the council.

Pope Leo's "Tomos" was written by a man who knew little about the details of the Christological controversy in the East, but it made an unusually strong impression with its harmonious logical structure, which managed to avoid both the kerygmatic style of Cyril and the errors of Nestorius. There is no information about whether the pope knew Greek, but he studied the problems by reading Tertullian and Augustine, as well as the treatise “On the Incarnation,” the drafting of which was entrusted to St. John Cassian due to Christological disputes. From Latin theology, he rather drew an understanding of salvation that especially emphasized the ideas of mediation and reconciliation, that is, the restoration of the correct and initially harmonious relationship between Creator and creation, than the understanding of deification, theosis, so beloved of the Greek Fathers. It was therefore natural for him to speak of Christ as having two natures, or substances (substantia), although he did not fully understand that the Latin word substantia was usually translated into Greek as hypostasis, which gave his theology a suspiciously Nestorian sound. Based on common sense, he emphasized an important truth, namely, that the two natures of Christ necessarily retain their properties after the union (agit utraque forma quod proprium est), since not in the abstract, but in concrete reality, Christ never ceased to be both God and Man . He added a concept important for the East: the actions inherent in Divinity and humanity respectively are carried out in unity with one another (cum alterius communione). It was this concept of the unity of Divinity and humanity in Christ that was the basis of the doctrine of theosis (deification). And finally, Leo, undoubtedly knowing what is really important for Cyril’s theology and what is especially opposed to the “Nestorian” Antiochian school, affirms theopaschism. “We can say,” he writes, “that the Son of God was crucified and buried, since we understand the unity of personality in both natures.” But since the correct translation into Greek of the word persona is πρόσωπο (prósopo), his presentation of the personal unity of Christ should only be understood as “prosopic” (as in Antioch), and not as “hypostatic” or “natural” (as in Cyril)10 .

The storm caused by objections to the text of Pope Leo, the fear of some that the whole of Cyrillic theology would be rejected, was so great that the officials had to use their power to close the meeting. But first they agreed that Anatoly of Constantinople (an obvious Cyrillic, former friend of Dioscorus , a deft church diplomat) will meet with the opposition in order to calm its doubts. Atticus of Nicopolis (in Epirus) - one of the objectors - especially insisted that the hitherto unread third "Epistle" of Cyril, containing the Twelve Anathematisms, be read in the plenary session. also had to be taken into account when considering the Orthodoxy of Leo.12 In essence, the debate at the third meeting turned out to be a trial of the Orthodoxy of Pope Leo, which was judged on the initial premises gleaned from Cyril.

In the end, it was only at the beginning of the fourth meeting of the council that Leo’s “Tomos” was declared free from any suspicion of heresy. After the statement of Legate Paskhazin ("The Venerable Leo, Archbishop of all churches (!), gave us a statement of the true faith... The council professes this faith... without changing, without deleting or adding a single comment"), the bishops one after another declared that Leo is in agreement with Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Cyril. The bishops of Illyricum also signed the Tomos, declaring that after meetings with Anatolius they could do so, being quite confident in the Orthodoxy of Archbishop Leo, “since the legates explained to us what seemed contradictory in (Leo’s) expressions.” A similar statement was made by the bishops of Palestine13. Although this meeting was formally in accordance with the instructions that Pope Leo gave to his legates - the "Tomos" was accepted as a statement of the Orthodox faith - it looked as if Leo was tried and acquitted on the basis of Cyril's Christology as the criterion of Orthodoxy.

The same meeting was marked by the formal acceptance of Juvenal of Jerusalem and other former friends of Dioscorus into full members of the council. They, of course, also signed Leo’s “Tomos,” and the Council Fathers welcomed the restored unity of the Church. But in reality, the future turned out to be not as rosy as expected: attempts by the cathedral Fathers and officials to achieve doctrinal agreement from the leading group of monks, including the famous Barsauma of Syria, were unsuccessful. These outstanding ascetics, who also took an active part in the “Robber” Council of 449, were presented to the council, but turned out to be less flexible than the bishops. They refused to anathematize not only Dioscorus, but even Eutyches, and thus led the anti-Chalcedonian opposition for the coming decades.

The position of the monks, their claim to be the only legitimate followers of St. Cyril, and their refusal to reject Eutyches all made clear that the preservation of Orthodox Christology, including the legacy of Cyril, requires doctrinal definition. At the fifth meeting of the council there were no longer protests against officials who persistently demanded a doctrinal definition. At this meeting, on October 22, only a select few were present: officials, papal legates, bishops of the main sees (Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem) and fifty-two other bishops. The meeting felt more like a steering committee than a plenary session. A draft statement, probably written by Anatoly of Constantinople, was submitted for discussion. Its text was not included in the protocol, but judging by the heated discussions that followed14, it is clear that it contained a clause calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos, that is, a decisive anti-Nestorian statement confirming the decision of the First Council of Ephesus, and also defined the essence of Jesus Christ as a combination of two natures, resorting to strictly Kirillian terminology. The acceptance of such a text would probably have satisfied Dioscorus and helped avoid a schism. Its strongly Cyrillic character provoked a brief objection from John of Germanica, a friend of Nestorius and Theodoret, who apparently was against the inclusion of the term Theotokos. His lonely voice was drowned out by cries: “May Mary be called in writing the Mother of God!” Much more serious was the energetic and formal protest of the Roman legates: “If the terms are not consistent with the message of the apostolic and most beatified man Leo, the archbishop, give us a copy, and we will return (to Rome), so that the council may meet there.” As we remember, the official position of the Roman Church was that all issues had already been resolved by Leo’s “Tomos” and that essentially no other resolution was needed. Since the officials demanded a resolution, it should at least have been in full accordance with the Tomos. Faced with this difficulty, imperial officials, whose main task was to ensure the unity of both Romes, proposed the creation of a new commission of representatives of all parties to revise the project. The bishops raised a noisy protest against this procedure. Most of them were satisfied with the existing version. The appeal of officials to the emperor and the direct order of Marcian eventually convinced the assembly to form a commission to create a new project.

Historians interpret this episode differently, depending on the premises from which they proceed. Apologists for papal primacy see here a direct victory for the authority of Rome. Eastern Anti-Chalcedonians, past and present, regret what they see as a tragic capitulation to the pope and the emperor. Historians sympathetic to Antiochene and Western Christologies express frustration at the “blindness” of the Greek episcopate, unable to understand the obvious heresy of Dioscorus, and praise the firmness of the legates15. However, none of the participants in the cathedral perceived this event in such a simplified form. In fact, all the bishops signed Leo's "Tomos" at the previous meeting. In their view, this was a completely sufficient expression of their condemnation of Eutyches and their acceptance of the formulation of two natures so energetically advanced by Leo. When the officials asked them a direct question: “Who are you for, Leo or Dioscorus?” they answered without hesitation: “We believe like Leo.”16 They hesitated to write in the decree “in two natures” rather than “of two natures” because they foresaw the dangerous consequences of completely abandoning the terminology used by Cyril. For them, as for the Fathers of the Fifth Council, which would meet a century later, that is, too late to heal the schism, neither the terminology of Cyril (“of two natures”) nor the terminology of Leo (“two natures after their union”) deserved separate and self-sufficient status: both served only to reject false teaching, that is, Nestorianism and Eutychianism, respectively.

Be that as it may, the commission met and came up with the famous Chalcedonian definition, a subtle compromise attempting to satisfy the followers of Cyril (using the terms Theotokos and "union in one person") as well as the Roman legates (claiming that we know Christ "in two natures... while preserving the properties of each of them"), and wisely professing the mystery of the Incarnation, using four negative adverbs (“unmerged, unchangeable, inseparable, inseparable”).

The status of this definition or oros (????) did not in any way claim to be a new Creed. The use of the term “Chalcedonian Symbol” in modern textbooks17 is erroneous. This text was not intended for liturgical, sacramental or “symbolic” use and was understood only as a definition excluding both the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies. The preamble very clearly defines this negative, “refuting” goal of the creators of the text. The definition includes the full text of the two Symbols—Nicene and Constantinople—followed by the statement that these two Symbols are “sufficient” for the knowledge of truth. And only then, after this conservative and protective statement, does the definition mention Nestorianism, Eutychianism and the “Epistle” of Cyril and Leo (calling each by name), written “to establish the true faith.” This mention of Cyril and Leo once again reflects the council’s conviction that Orthodoxy is expressed by both of them, and not by one or the other separately18. This decree was not intended to replace either the Epistles of Cyril or the Tomos of Leo as the expression of true faith; it had to find a Christological terminology consistent with the faith of both. Therefore, it is completely incorrect to say that Chalcedon renounced Leo (in the statement about the hypostatic union). Here is the paragraph that was so vigorously discussed at the fifth meeting:

“Therefore, following the Holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, one and the same perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity, true God and true Man, one and the same, consisting of verbal (rational) soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and the same consubstantial with us in humanity, similar to us in everything except sin; born of the Father before the ages according to Divinity, but He was born in the last days for our sake and our salvation from the Virgin Mary and the Mother of God according to humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only Begotten, cognizable in two natures (?? ??? ???????) unfused, unchangeable, inseparable, inseparable; the difference of His natures never disappears from their connections, but the properties of each of the two natures are combined in one person and one hypostasis (??? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ???????) so that He is not cut or divided into two persons, but He is one and the same Only Begotten Son, God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; exactly as the prophets of ancient times spoke about Him and as Himself Jesus Christ taught us, and how he gave us the Symbol of the Fathers."

This definition was signed by 454 bishops at the sixth meeting, on October 25, in the presence of the Emperor Marcian himself, who addressed the assembly first in Latin and then in Greek and who was hailed as the “new Constantine” and his wife Pulcheria as the “new Helen”.

For further history, what happened at the ninth and tenth sessions (October 26-27) was important: the rehabilitation of two outstanding bishops condemned by the “Robber” Council, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa. Theodoret was criticized by the First Council of Ephesus and Cyril in his writings; Iva wrote a letter to the Persian Maris, accusing Cyril of Apollinarism. Both vindications were pronounced only after both Theodoret and Iva had formally anathematized Nestorius. At first, Theodoret’s hesitation caused the indignation of the bishops, but he was recognized as Orthodox as soon as he finally said: “Anathema to Nestorius!” Theodoret was in fact a learned and moderate man, the organizer of reconciliation between Cyril and John of Antioch in 433. He clearly hoped that unity could be restored without anathematizing former friends. But the rehabilitation of him and Iva, which meant the acceptance into communion by the council of two former prominent and outspoken critics of Cyril, would be used by the “fundamentalist” followers of Cyril (who would become known as Monophysites) in their denigration of the entire Council of Chalcedon.