What Were the Aftereffects of the Council of Chalcedon? | Church History
TLDRThe script discusses the Chalcedonian Schism, a violent division within Christianity over the Council of Chalcedon's treatment of the Tome of Leo and its implications for Christology. It highlights the differing views on the nature of Christ, with Alexandrians and Antiochians rejecting the council's dual-nature doctrine, leading to accusations of Monophysitism and Nestorianism. The schism was further complicated by political factors and the Henotikon's attempt at reconciliation, which only deepened divisions, particularly with Rome's rejection of the document. The summary captures the essence of the theological and political strife that shaped this period of Christian history.
Takeaways
- 🏛️ The Council of Chalcedon was a contentious event that led to disagreements over the treatment of the Alexandrian ascetus and the imposition of the Tome of Leo.
- đź“ś Some saw the Tome of Leo as a betrayal of Cyril of Alexandria's teachings, as it canonized the language of two natures in Christ, which Cyril had only conceded to for the sake of reunion.
- 🌟 The Tome of Leo's statements about the divine and human natures of Christ were interpreted by some as contradicting Cyril's emphasis on attributing all attributes and activities to the person of Christ rather than to separate natures.
- 🔍 The use of the Latin term 'persona' in the Tome of Leo was seen as ambiguous and potentially implying a unity between a divine and a human person, rather than the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures.
- 🤝 Cyril advocated for a natural, internal union of the divine and human natures in Christ, while the Latin reading could suggest an external conjunction, leading to skepticism among bishops.
- 🛑 Political elements, such as the deposing of Dioscoros of Alexandria and the readmission of certain bishops, contributed to the negative perception of the Council by anti-Chalcedonians.
- 🔥 The schism between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians led to violent conflicts, with significant loss of life and societal unrest in Alexandria and Antioch.
- đź‘‘ Emperor Zeno's Henotikon attempted to reconcile the theological differences but was met with resistance from both sides and Rome, which saw it as a betrayal of Chalcedon.
- đź“ť The Henotikon's omission of Chalcedon and its attempt to satisfy both sides led to further divisions, with Rome breaking communion with the eastern bishops who signed the document.
- 🕊️ Despite the efforts for reconciliation, the fundamentalist views of both anti-Chalcedonians in Alexandria and Chalcedonians in Rome persisted, leading to the continuation of the schism.
- ⏳ The failure of the Henotikon and the death of Emperor Zeno in 491 A.D. marked the persistence of the schism, highlighting the deep theological and political divides within the early Christian church.
Q & A
What was the main controversy surrounding the Council of Chalcedon in relation to the treatment of the ascetic of Alexandria?
-The controversy was that some Alexandrians and Antiochenes felt the Council of Chalcedon betrayed Cyril of Alexandria by canonizing the language of the two natures of Christ, which he had only conceded to for the sake of reunion, but never established as the standard.
Why did some see the Tome of Leo as ambiguous and unfit to be the standard of faith?
-The Tome of Leo was seen as ambiguous due to its use of the Latin term 'persona', which could imply a unity between a divine and a human person, rather than the hypostatic union or natural unity, leading to skepticism among bishops.
What was the difference between the hypostatic union and the prosopic union as understood by Cyril of Alexandria?
-The hypostatic union refers to the internal union of the divine and human natures at the level of the person, emphasizing a natural unity. In contrast, the prosopic union implies an external unity between external realities, suggesting a mere conjunction.
What political elements contributed to the negative perception of the Council of Chalcedon by the Antichalcedonians?
-The political elements included the deposing of Dioscoros of Alexandria without deposing Juvenal of Jerusalem, who had similar positions, and the readmission of Abbas of Edessa and Theodoret of Cyrus, which was seen as leaning towards Nestorian teachings.
How did the accusations between Chalcedonians and Antichalcedonians escalate the conflict?
-The Chalcedonians accused the Antichalcedonians of being Monophysites or Eutychians, while the Antichalcedonians accused the Chalcedonians of being Nestorians, leading to violent riots and bloodshed.
What was the Henotikon and why was it significant in attempting to heal the schism?
-The Henotikon was a formula of faith coined by Emperor Zeno in 481 A.D. It aimed to be christologically satisfactory to both sides, clarifying that both sides had the same faith regarding Christ, but its omission of anything related to Chalcedon infuriated the Church of Rome.
Why did the Church of Rome impeach communion with the bishops of the East who signed the Henotikon?
-The Church of Rome saw the signing of the Henotikon as a betrayal of the perfection of Chalcedon, as it omitted any reference to the Council of Chalcedon.
What was the ultimate fate of the Henotikon and the schism it attempted to address?
-The Henotikon ultimately failed to reunite the churches, and the schism persisted even after Emperor Zeno's death in 491 A.D.
How did the fundamentalism of both the Antichalcedonians in Alexandria and the Chalcedonians in Rome contribute to the persistence of the schism?
-The fundamentalism of both parties led to a rigid stance on their respective positions, with the Antichalcedonians viewing Chalcedon in a purely negative light and the Chalcedonians perceiving its authority as unquestionable, preventing reconciliation.
What were the consequences of the violent schism between the Chalcedonians and Antichalcedonians in terms of human lives and religious unity?
-The violent schism resulted in the death of ten thousand Antichalcedonian Christians in Alexandria and caused significant disturbance and bloodshed in both Alexandria and Antioch, severely damaging religious unity.
Outlines
đź“ś The Chalcedonian Controversy and Its Aftermath
The first paragraph discusses the contentious Council of Chalcedon and its impact on Alexandrians and Antiochians. It highlights the dissatisfaction with the Tome of Leo and its perceived betrayal of Cyril of Alexandria's teachings on the nature of Christ. The text explains the conflict over the language of 'two natures' and the implications of the Tome's ambiguous terms, which led to accusations of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The schism resulted in violent clashes, with thousands of anti-Chalcedonian Christians killed in Alexandria for refusing to accept the Chalcedonian patriarch. The paragraph also touches on the political aspects of the schism, including the deposition of Dioscoros and the readmission of certain bishops, which further fueled the divide. The Henotikon, a formula of faith by Emperor Zeno, attempted to reconcile the two sides but was seen as a betrayal by Rome, leading to an 'occasional schism'.
🛂 The Henotikon and the Persistent Schism
The second paragraph delves into the Henotikon's role in the ongoing schism between the Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians. While the Henotikon aimed to clarify that both sides held the same faith regarding Christ, its omission of Chalcedon was met with outrage by the Church of Rome, leading to a break in communion with the bishops who signed it. The Alexandrians remained suspicious of Chalcedon and the Henotikon, desiring the complete erasure of Chalcedon from church history. The fundamentalist stances of both the anti-Chalcedonians in Alexandria and the Chalcedonians in Rome contributed to the persistence of the schism. The Henotikon's failure to reunite the churches and the subsequent death of Emperor Zeno in 491 A.D. marked the continuation of the divide.
Mindmap
Keywords
đź’ˇAlexandrians
đź’ˇAntiochians
đź’ˇCouncil of Chalcedon
đź’ˇTome of Leo
đź’ˇCyril of Alexandria
đź’ˇTwo Natures
đź’ˇHypostatic Union
đź’ˇMonophysitism
đź’ˇNestorianism
đź’ˇSchism
đź’ˇHenotikon
Highlights
Alexandrians and some Antiochians were displeased with the treatment of the ascorus of Alexandria at the Council of Chalcedon and the imposition of the Tome of Leo.
The Council of Chalcedon was seen by some as a betrayal of Cyril of Alexandria due to the canonization of the language of the two natures.
Cyril of Alexandria's concession on the two natures was for reunion, not as a standard statement, leading to controversy over the Tome of Leo.
The Tome of Leo's language was considered ambiguous and potentially unfaithful to Cyril's theological stance on Christ's natures.
Christ's attributes and activities should be attributed to the person of Christ, not divided between individual natures.
The Tome of Leo's use of 'persona' was seen as problematic, implying an external unity rather than a hypostatic union.
Cyril emphasized a natural, internal union of the divine and human natures in Christ, contrasting with the Tome of Leo's external conjunction.
Political elements at the Council of Chalcedon, such as the deposing of Dioscoros without similar action against Juvenal of Jerusalem, fueled skepticism.
The readmission of controversial figures like Abba of Edessa and Theodore of Cyrus was viewed negatively by the Antichalcedonians.
The violent schism between Chalcedonians and Antichalcedonians led to significant bloodshed and unrest.
The Chalcedonian-Antichalcedonian schism was characterized by accusations of monophysitism and Nestorianism, reflecting deep theological divides.
The Henotikon, a formula of faith by Emperor Zeno, attempted to reconcile the schism but was met with resistance from both sides.
The Church of Rome's rejection of the Henotikon due to its omission of Chalcedon led to further division.
The persistence of the schism was partly due to the fundamentalism of both Antichalcedonians in Alexandria and Chalcedonians in Rome.
The failure of the Henotikon and the death of Emperor Zeno in 491 A.D. marked the continuation of the schism.
Transcripts
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
Thanks for rating: