Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

814 27. the definition and enforcement of orthodoxy
Alexandrian christology in general, Leo was in a difficult position in that his
Tome had not been reconciled with Cyril’s Twelve Chapters. The scandalized
bishop of Rome called Ephesus II a latrocinium or robber council, and,
indeed, because it was not accepted in the west as orthodox, the council
never achieved oecumenical status.
ii. the council of chalcedon
After the death of Theodosius on 28 July 450, his sister Pulcheria and her
consort, the emperor Marcian, gave new direction to ecclesiastical matters.
Pulcheria had already taken the side of Rome against Ephesus II. Now the
new emperor summoned another council, which met at Chalcedon, across
the Bosphorus from Constantinople, on 8 October 451. The role of
Marcian and Pulcheria in securing new terms for orthodoxy at Chalcedon
was significant: not only were they present at the important sixth session,
but they entrusted the organization of the proceedings to imperial rather
than ecclesiastical officials, thus ensuring orderly procedures. 6 Here the
Tome of Leo was declared to be orthodox – that is, in harmony with the
Fathers and with Cyril; Dioscorus was deposed, and Theodoret and Ibas
restored. The participants also promulgated a definition of faith, which,
while it outlawed the extremes of both schools, namely Eutychianism and
Nestorianism, and attempted a balance between the christological terminology
of each, proclaimed Christ ‘in two natures’ as opposed to the
expression ‘from two natures’ favoured by the Alexandrians. This
definition was problematical from the start because in the east it was seen
only as an interpretation of the symbol or creed of Nicaea, whereas for Leo
it was an absolute definition which allowed no addition or subtraction. 7
Also critical was the resolution of the council, which later became known
as canon 28, whereby
the one hundred and fifty bishops gave the same privileges to the most holy patriarchal
throne of New Rome, judging with good reason that the city which was
honoured by the presence of the imperial office and the Senate and enjoyed equal
privileges with the older imperial Rome, should also be made powerful, like Rome,
in ecclesiastical matters, and should hold second place after her. 8
As a result of this canon, the influence of Alexandria was short-circuited.
To the bishop of Rome the canon was also unfavourable, and he was reluctant
to accept it explicitly. The issues of the formula ‘in two natures’ and
canon 28 were to cause unrest and resentment among Christians in both
east and west in the century that followed, and a lasting division in the
churches of the eastern Roman empire.
6 Meyendorff, Imperial Unity 168. 7 Ep. 145 in ACO ii.4,no.87, p.96, 4–6.
8 ACO i.1.3, 89, lines 4–9.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008