The Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils

Background

The problems of theology and Church order was by no means solved by the first two Ecumenical Councils. Arianism continued to exist and there arose a new controversy on the nature of Christ. Led by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, the movement taught that there were two distinct natures of Christ and as such Mary should not be called Theotokos or “Mother of God”. Challenging this was St. Cyril of Alexandria who wrote extensively against this new heresy. The Third Ecumenical Council was held in Ephesus in 431 AD and confirmed St. Cyril’s position.

However, fanatical followers of St. Cyril misread his position and actually took it to a point where Christ’s natures completely disappeared. They held a council in 449 which was later rejected as the Robber Council. In 451 another council was held in Chalcedon to further solve the question of Christ’s nature. They confirmed St. Cyril’s position but added St Leo the Great’s position as a balance. Many of the far eastern Churches did not attend (i.e. Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian) and adopted a position which became known as Monophysitism (meaning one nature). They remained separated from the Church to this day. In the end, a proper balance was achieved and the famous statement on the nature of Christ was promulgated.

In addition, during this period, there was a great rise in monasticism and the codification of the monastic rules. Other issues of Church order and discipline were set down.

The Issues

There were three main issues at these Councils. The first were in direct contradiction to each other. One claimed that Christ’s natures (human and divine) were so distinct that they were separate and had no relationship with each other. This was know as Nestorianism. In reaction to this, the other group claimed that Christ’s natures were so close together that there was not distinction in them, that they were swallowed up in each other. This was know as Monophysitism. Both were in reaction to trying to explain more clearly the decision of the first two Ecumenical Councils. In the end both were rejected.

The other issue was on the Theotokos and whether it was proper to call her by such a title. Nestorius said that she could be called Christokos or Mother of Christ or Anthropotokos or Mother of the Man called Christ but not Theotokos or Mother of God. His argument was that she gave birth to the man and the Christ but not the God. However it was successfully argued that she gave birth to him “according to the Flesh” who is the only begotten Son of God, the Divine Logos, begotten before all ages. Thus, the Son of God and the Son of Mary are the same Son. This confirmed in a very real way that Mariology is in fact Christology….or in other words, we cannot speak about Mary apart from understanding Christ. Mary points to Christ (as in the icons).

The Results

The results were twofold, theological and political. On the theological front, the famous Chalcedon formula to describe Christ’s natures was put forth. Christ was one person in two natures but these natures were neither mixed nor confused nor separate or divided. This is combined together in a hypostatic union which meant in a unique way Christ the person unites humanity and divinity. Christ was fully God and fully man and had the nature of both. Thus the Son of God and the son of Mary are the same person.

The other issue was the loss of the Monophysite Churches of Egypt, Armenia, Ethiopia, Syrian Jacobites, Church of India and Armenia. By failing to ratify the Chalcedon agreement, they went their separate ways. The are know today as the Non-Chalcedonians or Oriental Orthodox Church. However, in the last 20 years, many of the arguments have been resolved and it looks likely that there will be full communion in the near future. Many of the problems were misunderstanding and mistranslation of texts.

The Main People

When talking about these councils there are a few key figures. From the Orthodox side, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St Leo the Great, Pope of Rome. It was the combination of their writings which formulated the Chalcedon formula. Opposed to them are Nestorius and Eutyches.

Other western fathers such as St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome are also making developments. Such monastic and spiritual writers such as St. Ephraim the Syrian are also well known. There is also the many desert Fathers who are beginning to make their appearance and shape monasticism to this day. Their lives and writings are among the most valuable in Orthodoxy.

The Sources

The main source is the actual decisions of the Councils which explain the theological arguments and results. In addition, there are some wonderful letters by St. Cyril such as “On the Unity of Christ”. St. Leo’s “Tome of Leo” is also quite important to read.

The writings of St Augustine are also wonderful to read, especially his Confessions and City of God. St. Ephraim of Syria’s Hymns on Paradise is wonderful and spiritually enlightening. St. Cyril of Jerusalem also wrote a wonderful book on the sacraments. Finally, it is about this time that the Philokalia is beginning to be compiled. This is the most famous collection of spiritual writings in the Orthodox world and comes from the writings of the desert fathers. It is extremely valuable and worth reading.