The opposition to the Constantinopolitan Creed during the Council of Chalcedon

The opposition to the Constantinopolitan Creed during the Council of Chalcedon

It is during the First Session of Chalcedon that we first learn about a creed being attributed to the Council of Constantinople. Up until this point, no extant evidence is available to verify the claim that Constantinople I was responsible for producing the Creed commonly attributed to it. When Diogenes of Cyzicus accused Eutyches of omitting phrases to the Creed, the Egyptian bishops promptly objected that no one was permitted to add or subtract from the Creed. Eusebius of Dorylaeum seemed completely ignorant of canon 7, and Diogenes failed to address the canon directly. As we come to discover, the vast majority of bishops at Chalcedon weren’t particularly keen on adopting a new definition. In fact, most of them were opposed to it.

The minutes of the First Session are recorded as follows:

During the reading Eusebius the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘He lied! There is no such decree; there is no canon that states this.’

Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘There are four documents containing this decree. If the bishops decreed it, is it not a decree? Does he think it a canon? It is not a canon. But a canon is one thing, a decree another. Impugn the five conciliar documents. I have a copy, and so does such a one and such a one; let them all bring their documents.’

Diogenes the most devout bishop of Cyzicus said: ‘He adduced the council of the holy fathers at Nicaea deceptively, since additions were made to it by the holy fathers on account of the evil opinions of Apollinarius, Valentinus, Macedonius and those like them, and there were added to the creed of the holy fathers the words “He came down and was enfleshed from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin”. This Eutyches omitted, as an Apollinarian. For Apollinarius also accepted the holy council at Nicaea, but interpreted what it said according to his own heresy, and avoided saying “from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin” in order not to profess at all the union of the flesh. The holy fathers who came after clarified the words “was enfleshed” of the holy fathers at Nicaea by adding “from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin”.¹¹³

The most devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘No one admits any addition or subtraction. Confirm the work of Nicaea; the orthodox emperor has commanded this.¹¹⁴

¹¹³ The addition was made in the creed attributed to the Council of Constantinople of 381, which condemned Apollinarius for denying that Christ had a rational human soul and condemned Macedonius for denying the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. This creed enjoyed none of the status of the Creed of Nicaea, and only achieved general circulation when recited at Chalcedon (II. 14) and incorporated in the Definition (V. 33); Eutyches could scarcely be blamed for not having cited it.

¹¹⁴ The first of many appeals at the council to Canon 7 of Ephesus I, forbidding supplementation of the Nicene Creed.

(Acts of Chalcedon, First Session of Ephesus II, p. 157-158)

Richard Price narrates,

“The letters of the emperor Marcian summoning the council had given as the reason for its convocation the need to confirm the orthodox faith. The Council of Nicaea (325) had drawn up a creed which by the time of Chalcedon was considered irreplaceable and therefore set no precedent for the drawing up of fresh creeds; the production of new creeds had, in fact, been explicitly forbidden in Canon 7 of the First Council of Ephesus (read out at I. 943). The two councils of Ephesus of 431 and 449 had sought to confirm the faith by approving certain already existent documents and by condemning certain individuals. Therefore the bishops assembled at Chalcedon would have expected to settle the doctrinal issue in the same two ways – in this case by solemnly ratifying the Tome of Leo, which Marcian had from his accession treated as the key document in the controversy, and by disciplining Dioscorus and other opponents of Leo. Not only did the bishops not expect a new definition, but few if any of them had any desire for one, while the stance of the Roman delegates was that the task of the council was simply to approve the Tome of Leo as the definitive Christological statement. It therefore came as a shock to the bishops when at the beginning of this second session the patrician Anatolius, as the chairman and the emperor’s representative, told them to ‘produce a pure exposition of the faith’ (II. 2), in other words to compose a new credal statement.

The bishops protested vigorously: it was not permissible to issue a new creed, and nothing was needed to protect orthodoxy beyond approval of the Tome of Leo (3–5). The chairman ignored their objections and proposed the setting up of a select committee to ‘deliberate in common about the faith’

The bishops maintained their opposition. The chairman agreed to a request from one of the bishops that the Creed of Nicaea be read out, and then himself gave instructions for the reading of a second creed – that supposedly issued by the Council of Constantinople of 381. This creed had been referred to by the chairman in the previous session (I. 1072), but is mentioned in no document predating the Council of Chalcedon itself; even if the Council of Constantinople of 381 had approved this creed (which is uncertain), it had certainly not presented it as comparable in standing to the Creed of Nicaea, and very few of the bishops who arrived at Chalcedon are likely even to have heard of it. The sudden resurrection of this forgotten creed in 451 was doubtless motivated by the need to find a precedent for drawing up new creeds and definitions to supplement the Creed of Nicaea, as a way of getting round the ban on new creeds in Canon 7 of Ephesus.” (Acts of Chalcedon, Second Session of Chalcedon, pp. 2-3)

The minutes of the Second Session of Chalcedon are as follows:

“The question that is now to be investigated, judged and studied is how to confirm the true faith; it is particularly because of the faith that the council has assembled. You know that each one of you will give an account to God on behalf both of his own soul and of all of us, who long both to be taught the truths of religion correctly and to see every dispute resolved through the concord and agreement, harmonious exposition and teaching, of all the sacred fathers. Therefore apply yourselves without fear, favour or enmity to produce a pure exposition of the faith, so that even those who appear not to share the views of all may be restored to harmony by acknowledging the truth. We wish you to know that the most divine and pious master of the world and we ourselves preserve the orthodox faith handed down by the 318, by the 150,¹⁵ and by the other holy and glorious fathers, and believe in accordance with it.’ (I have read, we have read, he has read.)¹⁶

The most devout bishops exclaimed:¹⁷ ‘No one makes a new exposition,¹⁸ nor do we attempt or presume to do so. For it was the fathers who taught, what they expounded is preserved in writing, and we cannot go beyond it.’

Cecropius the most devout bishop of Sebastopolis said: ‘There arose the affair of Eutyches. A decree was issued on the subject by the most holy archbishop of Rome; we assent to it and we have all signed his letter.’¹⁹

The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘This is what we all say. What has already been expounded is sufficient. It is not permissible to produce another exposition.’

The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘If it seems good to your devoutness, let the most sacred patriarchs of each diocese²⁰ select, each one, one or two [bishops] from their own diocese, come together, deliberate in common about the faith, and then make their decisions known to all, so that, if all are in accord, every dispute may be resolved, which is what we wish, and if some prove to be of a contrary opinion, which we do not expect, this may reveal their opinions as well.’

The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We will not produce a written exposition. There is a canon which declares that what has already been expounded is sufficient. The canon forbids the making of another exposition. Let the [will] of the fathers prevail.’

Florentius the most devout bishop of Sardis said: ‘Since improvising about the faith is impossible for those taught to follow the holy council of Nicaea and the one that was rightly and piously convened at Ephesus, in accordance with the faith of the holy fathers Cyril and Celestine and the letter of the most holy Leo, we beg your greatness to grant us a post-ponement so that we may attain the truth of the matter with an appropriate plan – although indeed as regards ourselves, who have signed the letter of the most sacred Leo, we stand in no need of correction.’

Cecropius the most devout bishop of Sebastopolis said: ‘The faith was well defined by the 318 holy fathers and confirmed by the holy fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now again by the most holy Leo. We request that the creed of the 318 holy fathers and the letter of the most sacred Leo be read.’

The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the exposition of the 318 holy fathers who assembled at Nicaea be read.’

Eunomius the most devout bishop of Nicomedia read from a document:²¹

The Exposition of the Council at Nicaea

In the consulship of the most illustrious Paulinus and Julian, in the 636^th year after Alexander, on 19th Daisius and the 13^th day before the Kalends of July²² at Nicaea, the metropolis of Bithynia.

We believe in one God, Father, Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten from the Father as only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, both those on heaven and those on earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down, was enfleshed and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. Those who say, ‘There was when he was not’, and ‘Before being begotten he was not’, and that he came into being from things that are not, or assert that the Son of God is from another hypostasis or substance or is changeable or alterable, these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘This is the faith of the orthodox. This we all believe. In this we were baptized, in this we baptize. The blessed Cyril taught accordingly. This is the true faith. This is the holy faith. This is the eternal faith. Into this we were baptized, into this we baptize. We all believe accordingly. Pope Leo believes accordingly. Cyril believed accordingly. Pope Leo expounded accordingly.’

The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Read out as well the exposition of the 150 holy fathers.’

Aetius the most devout archdeacon of Constantinople read from a document:

The holy creed defined by the 150 holy fathers, agreeing with the holy and great council at Nicaea.²³

We believe in one God, Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, was enfleshed from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin and became man, was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried, rose on the third day in accordance with the scriptures and ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there will not be an end; and in the Holy Spirit, the lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified together, who spoke through the prophets; and in one holy catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. We await the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen.

All the most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘This is the faith of all. This is the faith of the orthodox. We all believe accordingly.’

¹⁵ The fathers of the councils of Nicaea (the 318) and of Constantinople (the 150).

¹⁶ From this point this formula (ν γνων, νεγνωµεν, ν γνω) appears repeatedly in the Greek text after speeches by the chairman. It is a formula of verification used by the scribes who edited the text, or even by the chairman himself (as suggested by Schwartz, ACO 2.1.3 p. xxv), certifying that his instructions and decisions have been faithfully recorded.

¹⁷ Rusticus ad loc. suggests that, where the text does not specify that an acclamation was made by all the bishops (as at 15 below), we are to understand that only certain bishops made it. But it is clear from the whole course of the debate both in this and the fifth session that the great majority of the bishops were unhappy at the proposal to produce a new definition of the faith. [emphasis mine]

¹⁸ ‘Exposition’ here and in the following paragraphs means ‘creed’. The reference here, and repeatedly in the following discussion, is to the ban on the composition of new creeds enunciated in Canon 7 of Ephesus I (I. 943).

¹⁹ The ‘decree’ is the Tome of Leo, given below at 22. On the accession of Marcian and Pulcheria, Pope Leo demanded adhesion to the Tome by each of the eastern bishops as a condition for restoration of communion with him, broken as a result of the Council of Ephesus of 449. Anatolius of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch, in accordance with the policy of the new government, were active and thorough in collecting signatures from the bishops under their authority (see Documents before the Council 9).

²⁰ That is, the senior bishops of each secular diocese (or group of provinces) – Macedonia, Thrace, Asiana, Pontica, Oriens and Egypt.

²¹ Nicomedia was the metropolitan see of Bithynia, in which Nicaea lay. Its bishop could therefore be trusted to produce the most authentic text of the Nicene Creed. It was not, however, the version inserted in the Chalcedonian Definition (see our discussion on pp. 191–4 below).

²² 19 June 325.

²³ This version of the text of the Creed of Constantinople is more accurate than that included in the Chalcedonian Definition, which omits a few phrases: see V. 33, with our note ad loc.

(Acts of Chalcedon, Second Session of Chalcedon, pp. 10-13)

Price further notes:

“It was the imperial officials, not the pope or the eastern bishops, who demanded that the council compose a new and explicit Definition of Faith – perhaps because Marcian could not claim to be a ‘new Constantine’ without a doctrinal product comparable to the Nicene Creed. The bishops expressed great reluctance to the imperial demand, agreeing only after the emperor threatened to move the council to Italy.” (Acts of Chalcedon, Introduction, p. 46)

Ultimately, the Magisterium rejected the rigorous interpretation employed by Dioscourous and the Egyptian party. It is the prerogative of the Magisterium alone (and not some schismatic bishops), to authentically interpret the Church’s own canons.