Council of Chalcedon

The Council of Chalcedon (/klsidn/ or

/klsdn/)[1] was a church council held from October 8 to November 1, AD 451, at Chalcedon (a
city of Bithynia in Asia Minor), on the Asian side of
the Bosporus, known in modern times as Kadky in
Istanbul, although it was then separate from Constantinople. The judgements and denitions of divine nature
issued by the council marked a signicant turning point
in the Christological debates that led to the separate
establishment of the church in the Western Roman
Empire during the 5th century.[2]

the last ecumenical council.[5] These churches, per Martin

Luther, hold that both conscience and scripture preempt
doctrinal councils and generally agree that the conclusions
of later councils were unsupported by or contradictory to
scripture. [6]

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Emperor

Marcian, with the reluctant approval of Pope Leo the
Great, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus
which would become known as the Latrocinium or
Robber Council.[3] The Council of Chalcedon issued
the Chalcedonian Denition, which repudiated the notion
of a single nature in Christ, and declared that he has two
natures in one person and hypostasis; it also insisted on
the completeness of his two natures: Godhead and manhood. The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In a further
decree, later known as the canon 28, the bishops declared
the See of Constantinople (New Rome) second only in
honor and authority to Rome.

In 325, the rst ecumenical council (First Council

of Nicaea) determined that Jesus Christ was God,
"consubstantial" with the Father, and rejected the Arian
contention that Jesus was a created being. This was reafrmed at the First Council of Constantinople (381) and
the Council of Ephesus (431).

1 Historical background
1.1 Relics of Nestorianism

After the Council of Ephesus had condemned

Nestorianism, there remained a conict between
Patriarchs John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria.
Cyril claimed that John remained Nestorian in outlook,
while John claimed that Cyril held to the Apollinarian
heresy. The two settled their dierences under the
mediation of the Bishop of Beroea, Acacius, on April
12, 433. In the following year, Theodoret of Cyrrhus
assented to this formula as well. He agreed to anathematize Nestorius as a heretic in 451, during the Council
of Chalcedon, as the price to be paid for being restored
to his see (after deposition at the Council of Ephesus of
449). This put a nal end to Nestorianism within the
Roman Empire

The Council is considered to have been the fourth

ecumenical council by the Eastern Orthodox Church,
the Catholic Church, the Old Catholics, and various
other Western Christian groups. As such, it is recognized as infallible in its dogmatic denitions by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (then one
church). Most Protestants also consider the concepts of
the Trinity and Incarnation as dened at Nicaea (in 325)
and Chalcedon to be orthodox doctrine to which they
adhere. However, the Council is not accepted by several of the ancient Eastern Churches, Coptic, Ethiopian,
Eritrean, Syriac, Malankara Syrian (Indian Orthodox
Church) and Armenian Apostolic churches, known as the
Oriental Orthodox churches, which teach The Lord Jesus Christ is God the Incarnate Word. He possesses the
perfect Godhead and the perfect manhood. His fully divine nature is united with His fully human nature yet without mixing, blending or alteration [4] which has been
misunderstood as monophysitism, a belief which the Oriental Orthodox Churches strongly disagree with according to this source. Nonetheless, the Oriental Orthodox
Churches refuse to accept the decrees of the council regarding monophysitism.

1.2 Eutychian controversy

About two years after Cyril of Alexandria's death in
444, an aged monk from Constantinople named Eutyches
began teaching a subtle variation on the traditional
Christology in an attempt (as he described in a letter to Pope Leo I in 448) to stop a new outbreak of
Nestorianism. He claimed to be a faithful follower of
Cyrils teaching, which was declared orthodox in the
Union of 433.
Cyril had taught that There is only one physis, since
it is the Incarnation, of God the Word. Cyril had apparently understood the Greek word physis to mean approximately what the Latin word persona (person) means,
while most Greek theologians would have interpreted that
word to mean natura (nature). Thus, many understood

Many Anglicans and most Protestants consider it to be

1

2
Eutyches to be advocating Docetism, a sort of reversal
of Arianismwhere Arius had denied the consubstantial
divinity of Jesus, Eutyches seemed to be denying his human nature. Cyrils orthodoxy was not called into question, since the Union of 433 had explicitly spoken of two
physeis in this context.
Leo I wrote that Eutyches error seemed to be more from
a lack of skill on the matters than from malice. Further,
his side of the controversy tended not to enter into arguments with their opponents, which prevented the misunderstanding from being uncovered. Nonetheless, due to
the high regard in which Eutyches was held (second only
to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the East), his teaching spread rapidly throughout the East.
In November 448, during a local synod in Constantinople, Eutyches was denounced as a heretic by the Bishop
Eusebius of Dorylaeum. Eusebius demanded that Eutyches be removed from oce. Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople preferred not to press the matter on account
of Eutyches great popularity. He nally relented and Eutyches was condemned as a heretic by the synod. However, the Emperor Theodosius II and Pope Dioscorus
I of Alexandria, rejected this decision ostensibly because Eutyches had repented and confessed his orthodoxy. Dioscorus then held his own synod which reinstated Eutyches. The competing claims between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria led the Emperor to call a council which was held in Ephesus in 449.
The emperor invited Pope Leo I to preside.[7] He declined
to attend on account of the invasion of Italy by Attila the
Hun. However, he agreed to send four legates to represent him. Leo provided his legates, one of whom died en
route, with a letter addressed to Flavian of Constantinople explaining Romes position in the controversy. Leos
letter, now known as Leos Tome, confessed that Christ
had two natures, and was not of or from two natures.[8]
Although it could be reconciled with Cyrils Formula of
Reunion, it was not compatible in its wording with Cyrils
Twelve Anathemas. In particular, the third anathema
reads: If anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases
after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of
dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming
together in a union by nature, let him be anathema. This
appeared to some to be incompatible with Leos denition of two natures hypostatically joined. However, the
Council would determine (with the exception of 13 Egyptian bishops) that this was an issue of wording and not
of doctrine; a committee of bishops appointed to study
the orthodoxy of the Tome using Cyrils letters (which
included the twelve anathemas) as their criteria unanimously determined it to be orthodox, and the Council,
with few exceptions, supported this.[9]

3 CONVOCATION AND SESSION

2 Latrocinium of Ephesus
On August 8, 449 the Second Council of Ephesus began its rst session with Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria
presiding by command of the Emperor. Dioscorus began the council by banning all members of the November
447 synod which had deposed Eutyches. He then introduced Eutyches who publicly professed that while Christ
had two natures before the incarnation, the two natures
had merged to form a single nature after the incarnation. Of the 130 assembled bishops, 111 voted to rehabilitate Eutyches. Throughout these proceedings, Hilary
(one of the papal legates) repeatedly called for the reading
of Leos Tome, but was ignored. Dioscorus then moved
to depose Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum on the
grounds that they taught the Word had been made esh
and not just assumed esh from the Virgin and that Christ
had two natures. When Flavian and Hilary objected,
Dioscorus called for a pro-monophysite mob to enter the
church and assault Flavian as he clung to the altar. Flavian was mortally wounded. Dioscorus then placed Eusebius of Dorylaeum under arrest and demanded the assembled bishops approve his actions. Fearing the mob,
they all did. The papal legates refused to attend the second session at which several more orthodox bishops were
deposed, including Ibas of Edessa, Irenaeus of Tyre (a
close personal friend of Nestorius), Domnus of Antioch,
and Theodoret. Dioscorus then pressed his advantage by
having Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas posthumously declared orthodox[10] with the intent of condemning any confession other than one nature in Christ. Hilary, who later became pope and dedicated an oratory in
the Lateran Basilica in thanks for his life,[11] managed
to escape from Constantinople and brought news of the
Council to Leo who immediately dubbed it a synod of
robbersLatrociniumand refused to accept its pronouncements. The decisions of this council now threatened schism between the East and the West.

3 Convocation and session

The situation continued to deteriorate, with Leo demanding the convocation of a new council and Emperor Theodosius II refusing to budge, all the while appointing bishops in agreement with Dioscorus. All this changed dramatically with the Emperors death and the elevation of
Marcian, an orthodox Christian, to the imperial throne.
To resolve the simmering tensions, Marcian announced
his intention to hold a new council. Leo had pressed for it
to take place in Italy, but Emperor Marcian instead called
for it to convene at Nicaea. Hunnish invasions forced it to
move at the last moment to Chalcedon, where the council opened on October 8, 451. Marcian had the bishops
deposed by Dioscorus returned to their dioceses and had
the body of Flavian brought to the capital to be buried
honorably.

3.1

Confession of Chalcedon

The Emperor asked Leo to preside over the council, but

Leo again chose to send legates in his place. This time,
Bishops Paschasinus of Lilybaeum and Julian of Cos
and two priests Boniface and Basil represented the western church at the council. The Council of Chalcedon
condemned the work of the Robber Council and professed the doctrine of the Incarnation presented in Leos
Tome. Attendance at this council was very high, with
about 370 bishops (or presbyters representing bishops)
attending.[12] Paschasinus refused to give Dioscorus (who
had excommunicated Leo leading up to the council) a seat
at the council. As a result, he was moved to the nave
of the church. Paschasinus further ordered the reinstatement of Theodoret and that he be given a seat, but this
move caused such an uproar among the council fathers,
that Theodoret also sat in the nave, though he was given
a vote in the proceedings, which began with a trial of
Dioscorus.
Marcian wished to bring proceedings to a speedy end, and
asked the council to make a pronouncement on the doctrine of the Incarnation before continuing the trial. The
council fathers, however, felt that no new creed was necessary, and that the doctrine had been laid out clearly in
Leos Tome.[8] They were also hesitant to write a new
creed as the Council of Ephesus had forbidden the composition or use of any new creed. The second session
of the council ended with shouts from the bishops, It is
Peter who says this through Leo. This is what we all of
us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles. Leo and
Cyril teach the same thing. However, during the reading
of Leos Tome, three passages were challenged as being
potentially Nestorian, and their orthodoxy was defended
by using the writings of Cyril.[13] Nonetheless due to such
concerns, the Council decided to adjourn and appoint a
special committee to investigate the orthodoxy of Leos
Tome, judging it by the standard of Cyrils Twelve Chapters, as some of the bishops present raised concerns about
their compatibility. This committee was headed by Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and was given ve
days to carefully study the matter; Cyrils Twelve Chapters were to be used as the orthodox standard. The committee unanimously decided in favor of the orthodoxy of
Leo, determining that what he said was compatible with
the teaching of Cyril. A number of other bishops also entered statements to the eect that they believed that Leos
Tome was not in contradiction with the teaching of Cyril
as well.[13]

3
would indeed be necessary and presented a text to the fathers. No consensus was reached, and indeed the text has
not survived to the present. Paschasinus threatened to return to Rome to reassemble the council in Italy. Marcian
agreed, saying that if a clause were not added to the credo
supporting Leos doctrine , the bishops would have to relocate. The bishops relented and added a clause, saying
that, according to the decision of Leo, in Christ there are
two natures united, inconvertible, inseparable.

3.1 Confession of Chalcedon

Main article: Chalcedonian Creed
The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement
on the human and divine nature of Christ:[14]
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all
with one consent, teach people to confess one
and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the
same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in
manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according
to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us
according to the Manhood; in all things like
unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages
of the Father according to the Godhead, and
in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother
of God, according to the Manhood; one and
the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten,
to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; ( , ,
, in duabus naturis
inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no
means taken away by the union, but rather the
property of each nature being preserved, and
concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one
Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided
into two persons, but one and the same Son,
and only begotten God ( ), the
Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets
from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has
taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has
handed down to us.

The council continued with Dioscorus trial, but he refused to appear before the assembly. As a result, he
was condemned, but by an underwhelming amount (more
than half the bishops present for the previous sessions did
not attend his condemnation), and all of his decrees were
declared null. Marcian responded by exiling Dioscorus.
All of the bishops were then asked to sign their assent to 3.2 Canons
the Tome, but a group of thirteen Egyptians refused, saying that they would assent to the traditional faith. As a The work of the council was completed by a series of
canons the Ancient Epitomes of which
result, the Emperors commissioners decided that a credo 30 disciplinary
are:[15]

3 CONVOCATION AND SESSION

1. The canons of every Synod of the holy Fathers shall
be observed.

13. No cleric shall be received to communion in another

city without a letter commendatory.

2. Whoso buys or sells an ordination, down to a Prosmonarius, shall be in danger of losing his grade.
Such shall also be the case with go-betweens, if they
be clerics they shall be cut o from their rank, if
laymen or monks, they shall be anathematized.

14. A Cantor or Lector alien to the sound faith, if being

then married, he shall have begotten children let him
bring them to communion, if they had there been
baptized. But if they had not yet been baptized they
shall not be baptized afterwards by the heretics.

3. Those who assume the care of secular houses should

be corrected, unless perchance the law called them
to the administration of those not yet come of age,
from which there is no exemption. Unless further
their Bishop permits them to take care of orphans
and widows.

15. No person shall be ordained deaconess except she be

forty years of age. If she shall dishonour her ministry by contracting a marriage, let her be anathema.

4. Domestic oratories and monasteries are not to be

erected contrary to the judgment of the bishop. Every monk must be subject to his bishop, and must
not leave his house except at his suggestion. A slave,
however, can not enter the monastic life without the
consent of his master.

17. Village and rural parishes if they have been possessed for thirty years, they shall so continue. But
if within that time, the matter shall be subject to adjudication. But if by the command of the Emperor a
city be renewed, the order of ecclesiastical parishes
shall follow the civil and public forms.

5. Those who go from city to city shall be subject to the

canon law on the subject.

18. Clerics and Monks, if they shall have dared to hold

conventicles and to conspire against the bishop, shall
be cast out of their rank.

6. In Martyries and Monasteries ordinations are strictly

forbidden. Should any one be ordained therein, his
ordination shall be reputed of no eect.
7. If any cleric or monk arrogantly aects the military
or any other dignity, let him be cursed.
8. Any clergyman in an almshouse or monastery must
submit himself to the authority of the bishop of the
city. But he who rebels against this let him pay the
penalty.
9. Litigious clerics shall be punished according to
canon, if they despise the episcopal and resort to
the secular tribunal. When a cleric has a contention
with a bishop let him wait till the synod sits, and if
a bishop have a contention with his metropolitan let
him carry the case to Constantinople.
10. No cleric shall be recorded on the clergy-list of the
churches of two cities. But if he shall have strayed
forth, let him be returned to his former place. But
if he has been transferred, let him have no share in
the aairs of his former church.
11. Let the poor who stand in need of help make their
journey with letters pacicatory and not commendatory: For letters commendatory should only be given
to those who are open to suspicion.
12. One province shall not be cut into two. Whoever
shall do this shall be cast out of the episcopate. Such
cities as are cut o by imperial rescript shall enjoy
only the honour of having a bishop settled in them:
but all the rights pertaining to the true metropolis
shall be preserved.

16. Monks or nuns shall not contract marriage, and if

they do so let them be excommunicated.

19. Twice each year the Synod shall be held wherever

the bishop of the Metropolis shall designate, and all
matters of pressing interest shall be determined.
20. A clergyman of one city shall not be given a cure in
another. But if he has been driven from his native
place and shall go into another he shall be without
blame. If any bishop receives clergymen from without his diocese he shall be excommunicated as well
as the cleric he receives.
21. A cleric or layman making charges rashly against his
bishop shall not be received.
22. Whoever seizes the goods of his deceased bishop
shall be cast forth from his rank.
23. Clerics or monks who spend much time at Constantinople contrary to the will of their bishop, and
stir up seditions, shall be cast out of the city.
24. A monastery erected with the consent of the bishop
shall be immovable. And whatever pertains to it
shall not be alienated. Whoever shall take upon him
to do otherwise, shall not be held guiltless.
25. Let the ordination of bishops be within three
months: necessity however may make the time
longer. But if anyone shall ordain counter to this decree, he shall be liable to punishment. The revenue
shall remain with the conomus.
26. The conomus in all churches must be chosen from
the clergy. And the bishop who neglects to do this
is not without blame.

4.2

The status of Constantinople

27. If a clergyman elope with a woman, let him be expelled from the Church. If a layman, let him be
anathema. The same shall be the lot of any that assist him.
28. The bishop of New Rome shall enjoy the same honour as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire. For this reason the [metropolitans] of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the
Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of
Constantinople.

5
The metropolitan of Jerusalem was given independence
from the metropolitan of Antioch and from any other
higher-ranking bishop, given what is now known as
autocephaly, in the councils seventh session whose Decree on the Jurisdiction of Jerusalem and Antioch contains: the bishop of Jerusalem, or rather the most holy
Church which is under him, shall have under his own
power the three Palestines.[15] This led to Jerusalem becoming a patriarchate, one of the ve patriarchates known
as the pentarchy, when the title of patriarch was created
in 531 by Justinian.[17][18]

29. He is sacrilegious who degrades a bishop to the rank

of a presbyter. For he that is guilty of crime is un- 4.2 The status of Constantinople
worthy of the priesthood. But he that was deposed
without cause, let him be [still] bishop.
In a canon of disputed validity,[19] the Council of Chal30. It is the custom of the Egyptians that none subscribe cedon also elevated the See of Constantinople to a poin eminence and power to the Bishop of
without the permission of their Archbishop. Where- sition second
[20][21]
Rome".
fore they are not to be blamed who did not subscribe
the Epistle of the holy Leo until an Archbishop had The Council of Nicaea in 325 had noted the primacy of
been appointed for them.
the See of Rome, followed by the Sees of Alexandria and
Antioch. At the time, the See of Constantinople was yet
Canon 28 grants equal privileges (isa presbeia) to Con- of no ecclesiastical prominence but its proximity to the
stantinople as of Rome because Constantinople is the Imperial court, gave rise to its importance. The CounNew Rome as renewed by canon 36 of the Quinisext cil of Constantinople in 381 modied the situation someCouncil. The papal legates were not present for the vote what by placing Constantinople second in honor, above
on this canon, and protested it afterwards, and it was not Alexandria and Antioch, stating in Canon III, that the
bishop of Constantinople... shall have the prerogative of
ratied by Pope Leo in Rome.
honor after the bishop of Rome; because Constantinople
According to some ancient Greek collections, canons 29 is New Rome. In the early 5th century, this status was
and 30 are attributed to the council: canon 29, which challenged by the bishops of Alexandria, but the Council
states that an unworthy bishop cannot be demoted but of Chalcedon conrmed in Canon XXVIII:
can be removed, is an extract from the minutes of the
19th session; canon 30, which grants the Egyptians time
For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the
to consider their rejection of Leos Tome, is an extract
throne of old Rome, because it was the royal
[16]
from the minutes of the fourth session.
city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most reIn all likelihood an ocial record of the proceedings
ligious Bishops, actuated by the same considwas made either during the council itself or shortly aferation, gave equal privileges ( )
terwards. The assembled bishops informed the pope that
to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly
a copy of all the Acta would be transmitted to him; in
judging that the city which is honoured with the
March, 453, Pope Leo commissioned Julian of Cos, then
Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal
at Constantinople, to make a collection of all the Acts and
privileges with the old imperial Rome, should
translate them into Latin. Most of the documents, chiey
in ecclesiastical matters also be magnied as
the minutes of the sessions, were written in Greek; others,
she is, and rank next after her.[22]
e.g. the imperial letters, were issued in both languages;
others, again, e.g. the papal letters, were written in Latin. In making their case, the council fathers argued that traEventually nearly all of them were translated into both dition had accorded honor to the see of older Rome belanguages.
cause it was the rst imperial city. Accordingly, moved
by the same purposes the fathers apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome because
4 The status of the sees of Con- the city which is honored by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome
stantinople and Jerusalem
should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical aairs
and take second place after her.[23] The framework for
allocating ecclesiastical authority advocated by the coun4.1 The status of Jerusalem
cil fathers mirrored the allocation of imperial authority in
See also: Jerusalem in Christianity
the later period of the Roman Empire. The Eastern position could be characterized as being political in nature,

7 NOTES

as opposed to a doctrinal view. In practice, all Christians East and West addressed the papacy as the See of
Peter and Paul or the Apostolic See rather than the See
of the Imperial Capital. Rome understands this to indicate that its precedence has always come from its direct
lineage from the apostles Peter and Paul rather than its
association with Imperial authority.
After the passage of the Canon 28, Rome led a protest
against the reduction of honor given to Antioch and
Alexandria. However, fearing that withholding Romes
approval would be interpreted as a rejection of the entire
council, in 453 the pope conrmed the councils canons
with a protest against the 28th.

Consequences of the council

The near-immediate result of the council was a major

schism. The bishops that were uneasy with the language
of Pope Leos Tome repudiated the council, saying that
the acceptance of two physes was tantamount to Nestorianism. Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria advocated miaphysitism and had dominated the Council of Ephesus.[24]
Churches that rejected Chalcedon in favor of Ephesus
broke o from the rest of the Church in a schism, the most
signicant among these being the Church of Alexandria,
today known as the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.[25]
Justinian I attempted to bring those monks who still rejected the decision of the Council of Chalcedon into communion with the greater church. The exact time of this
event is unknown, but it is believed to have been between
535 and 548. St Abraham of Farshut was summoned
to Constantinople and he chose to bring with him four
monks. Upon arrival, Justinian summoned them and informed them that they would either accept the decision of
the Council or lose their positions. Abraham refused to
entertain the idea. Theodora tried to persuade Justinian to
change his mind, seemingly to no avail. Abraham himself stated in a letter to his monks that he preferred to
remain in exile rather than subscribe to a faith contrary
to that of Athanasius. They were not alone, and the nonChalcedon churches compose Oriental Orthodoxy, with
the Church of Alexandria as their spiritual leader. Only
in recent years has a degree of rapprochement between
Chalcedonian Christians and the Oriental Orthodox been
seen.

Liturgical Commemorations

Councils.[28]
For the both of the above complete propers have been
composed and are found in the Menaion.
For the former The Oce of the 630 Holy and Godbearing Fathers of the 4th ... Summoned against the
Monophysites Eftyches and Dioskoros ... was composed
in the middle of the 14th century by Patriarch Philotheus
I of Constantinople. This contains numerous hymns exposing the councils teaching, commemorating its leaders
whom it praises and whose prayers it implores, and naming its opponents pejoratively. e.g., Come let us clearly
reject the errors of ... but praise in divine songs the fourth
council of pious fathers.[27]
For the latter the propers are titled We Commemorate Six Holy Ecumenical Councils.[28] This repeatedly
damns those anathematized by the councils with such
rhetoric as Christ-smashing deception enslaved Nestorius and mindless Arius and ... is tormented in the
res of Gehenna ... while the fathers of the councils are
praised and the dogmas of the councils are expounded in
the hymns therein.

7 Notes
[1] Chalcedon. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. (accessed: September 21, 2008).
[2] The acts of the Council of Chalcedon by Council of Chalcedon, Richard Price, Michael Gaddis 2006 ISBN 085323-039-0 pages 15
[3] Cross, F.L.; Livingstone, E.A., eds. (1974). "Latrocinium". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[4] Questions and Answers by His Grace Bishop Youssef.
suscopts. Retrieved 2014-06-10.
[5] An Episcopal dictionary of the church by Donald S. Armentrout, Robert Boak Slocum 2005 ISBN 0-89869-2113 page 81
[6] http://www.learn.columbia.edu/ma/htm/sw/ma_sw_
prim_ecumen_council.htm
[7] Hughes, Philip (1954). A Popular History of the Catholic
Church. Garden City, New York: Image Books (Doubleday). p. 37.
[8] Leos Tome
[9] Fr. John Romanides, http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.
06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.
htm#m7
[10] Frend, W. H. C., The Rise of the Monophysite Movement,

Cambridge University Press, 1972, pps. 4143

The Eastern Orthodox Church commemorates the Holy
Fathers of the 4th Ecumenical Council, who assembled
[11] Life of St. Hilary
in Chalcedon on the Sunday on or after July 13; [26]
[27]
however, in some places (e.g. Russia) on that date is [12] Price and Gaddis. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon
rather a feast of the Fathers of the First Six Ecumenical
Liverpool, 2005. Vol. 3, 1936

[13] Fr.
John Romanides, ST. CYRIL'S ONE PHYSIS OR HYPOSTASIS OF GOD THE LOGOS
INCARNATE AND CHALCEDON, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. X, 2 Winter 1964
65, online at http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st.
_cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm
[14] The Chalcedonian Denition. Agreed at the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451. @ earlychurchtexts.com.
[15]
[16] The Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, ed. Norman P. Tanner, S.J. (1990), 7576.
[17] L'idea di pentarchia nella cristianit
[18] The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v. patriarch (ecclesiastical), also calls it a title dating from the 6th
century, for the bishops of the ve great sees of Christendom. And Merriam-Websters Encyclopedia of World
Religions says: Five patriarchates, collectively called the
pentarchy, were the rst to be recognized by the legislation of the emperor Justinian (reigned 527565)".
[19] George C. Michalopulos, Canon 28 and Eastern Papalism: Cause or Eect?"
[20] Bokenkotter, Thomas (2004). A Concise History of the
Catholic Church. Doubleday. p. 84. ISBN 0-385-505841.
[21] Noble, Thomas; Strauss, Barry (2005). Western Civilization. Houghton Miin Company. p. 214. ISBN 0-61843277-9.
[22] Canon IX, Council of Chalcedon Seven Ecumenical
Councils, Christian Classics Ethereal Library
[23] Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, SJ, 99100.
[24] Latrocinium. Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford Dictionary
of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University
Press. 2005
[25] Egypt. Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World
Aairs. Retrieved 2011-12-14. See drop-down essay on
Islamic Conquest and the Ottoman Empire
[26] On the Sunday of the Holy Fathers of the 4th Ecumenical
Council, who assembled in Chalcedon work=Liturgical
Texts Menaion July Holy Fathers. Anastasis
The Home Page of Archimandrite Ephrem. Retrieved
2013-08-28.
[27] TA
' ,
". Retrieved 2013-08-28.
[28] "
16 :
.
". Retrieved 2013-08-28.

8 Bibliography
Edward Walford, translator, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius: A History of the Church from AD
431 to AD 594, 1846. Reprinted 2008. Evolution
Publishing, ISBN 978-1-889758-88-6.
Bindley, T. Herbert and F. W. Green, The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith. 2nd ed. London:
Methuen, 1950.
Grillmeier, Aloys (1975), Christ in Christian Tradition: from the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451),
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, ISBN 0664-22301-X
Hefele, Charles Joseph. A History of the Councils
of the Church from the Original Documents. 5 vols.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1883. (Our topic is located
in vol. 3)
Meyendor, John, Christ in Eastern Christian
Thought (Washington D.C.: Corpus Books, 1969).
Price, Richard, and Gaddis, Michael, The Acts of the
Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols (Liverpool University
Press, 2005, 2007).
Sellers,R.V., Two Ancient Christologies (London:
SPCK, 1940)
Sellers, R.V., The Council of Chalcedon: A Historical and Doctrinal Survey, (London, SPCK, 1953).

9 External links
Catholic Encyclopedia: Council of Chalcedon
Catholic Encyclopedia: Robber Council of Ephesus
Coptic interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical
Council
Council of Chalcedon
Orthodox Unity
The U.S. Oriental Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation

10

10
10.1

TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

Council of Chalcedon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council%20of%20Chalcedon?oldid=649361970 Contributors: Mav, Wesley, Andre Engels, Sfdan, Michael Hardy, Mpolo, Docu, Djnjwd, Charles Matthews, Adam Bishop, Tb, Selket, Paul-L, Joy, Carbuncle, Carlossuarez46, Dimadick, Psychonaut, Henrygb, Guy Peters, Dmn, GreatWhiteNortherner, Rbushlow, Michael Devore, EJDyksen, Macrakis, Gdr, BozMo, Kuralyov, Sam Hocevar, Neutrality, Didactohedron, Rich Farmbrough, Cnyborg, Djordjes, Demaag, Lima,
Bobo192, Stephenparsons, AllyUnion, Caeruleancentaur, Jonathunder, A2Kar, Alansohn, CheeseDreams, Wtmitchell, Garzo, Kbolino,
Preost, Jacob Haller, Isnow, Mandarax, Stmoose, Rjwilmsi, FlaBot, Markio, Banazir, Tijuana Brass, Str1977, Vilcxjo, Chobot, VolatileChemical, YurikBot, RobotE, Hairy Dude, Cyferx, RussBot, Fabartus, Twin Bird, Bota47, Private Butcher, Stefeyboy, LeonardoRob0t,
Katieh5584, SmackBot, PiCo, KnowledgeOfSelf, Unyoyega, Stephensuleeman, Hmains, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Hibernian, BALawrence, Yzkoc, Colonies Chris, Torzsmokus, Egsan Bacon, Deaconzach, EOZyo, Kukini, SashatoBot, Paolo Belzoni, Trit, Thelongview,
Neddyseagoon, TJ Spyke, Joseph Solis in Australia, Ghaly, InfernoXV, Ngc3532, Rwammang, Pseudo-Richard, Mapletip, Vaquero100,
Cydebot, Gogo Dodo, Philbert2.71828, Miguel de Servet, Irendraca, Michael C Price, Nasugbu batangas, Gimmetrow, Thijs!bot, Epbr123,
Oliver202, Marek69, Astynax, Uruiamme, Fayenatic london, Kevin Nelson, JAnDbot, Mcorazao, Ericoides, Dr mindbender, Sam Medany,
Martynas Patasius, Clive sweeting, Pax:Vobiscum, Jim.henderson, Kostisl, Dudley Miles, It Is Me Here, Johnbod, Anietor, Kansas
Bear, Student7, Lanternix, Mohries, Pastordavid, MishaPan, RoyFocker, Hugo999, Je G., Neotertullian, EastmeetsWest, TXiKiBoT, UnitedStatesian, Rumiton, T00001, VanishedUserABC, SieBot, Gerakibot, FunkMonk, Jc3schmi, Afernand74, Vanished user ewsn2348tui2f8n2o2utjfeoi210r39jf, Anchor Link Bot, Troy 07, Soidi, ClueBot, Binksternet, Clivemacd, NancyHeise, Ewawer, Drmies,
Leadwind, Piledhigheranddeeper, Alexbot, Tomeasy, PixelBot, Cuckowski, Dwwren, Venera 7, Editor2020, Darkicebot, Ambrosius007,
XLinkBot, Dthomsen8, Divius, SilvonenBot, NellieBly, December12AC, Addbot, Deusveritasest, Diverumve, Leszek Jaczuk, LaaknorBot, Redheylin, Glane23, AnnaFrance, Vikslen, Garciadd, Bwrs, Lightbot, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, RockfangBot, AnomieBOT,
Unara, Materialscientist, Gie2910, Xqbot, Prudencio Clemente, Croaqzx, TakenakaN, Karlmudjin, Omnipaedista, Doc Yak, Tigernose,
Tucked, Nikil44, FrescoBot, LucienBOT, Krj373, Hirpex, DrilBot, Elockid, PrincessofLlyr, BRUTE, RedBot, MastiBot, Richard Meredith, Brumon, Memphoboy, Redemption2003, Esoglou, EmausBot, John of Reading, WikitanvirBot, Lipsio, Pdbowman, Laurel Lodged,
Robertjohn15, Beatitudes6479, ZroBot, Yoroshio, Neckar, Marc Spoddle, Senjuto, ClueBot NG, Atrahasis01, Jdperkins, Helpful Pixie
Bot, ReformedArsenal, Silentquasar, Jpacobb, Jfhutson, Drewrau, Wendybelcher, Jdnwf66, Khazar2, Oh, Sporadiccontributions, CutlerB, Calawpro, Monkbot, Yoloman123, Pupsikon, George2530 and Anonymous: 141

10.2

Images

File:046CupolaSPietro.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/046CupolaSPietro.jpg License: CC BY-SA

3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: MarkusMark
File:Fourth_ecumenical_council_of_chalcedon_-_1876.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Fourth_
ecumenical_council_of_chalcedon_-_1876.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Wikipaintings Original artist: Vasily Surikov
File:Nicaea_icon.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Nicaea_icon.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: [1],[2] Original artist: Unknown

10.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0