Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/619

 CHALCEDON

557

CHALCEDON

declared themselves satisfied with the deposition of Dioscurus alone. The second session (10 October)^ was occupied with the reading of testimonia bearing on C questions of faith, chiefly those under discussion. ( Among them were the symbols or creeds of the ( !oun- ' cjla of NIcsea (325) and of Constantinople (381 ); two letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria, viz. his second letter to Nestorius and the letter written to the Antiochene bishops in 433 after his reconciliation with them; finally the dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I. All these documents were approved by the council. When the pope's famous epistle was read the members of the council exclaimed that the faith contained there- in was the faith of the Fathers and of the Apostles; that through Leo, Peter had spoken.

The third session was held 13 October; the imperial commissioners and a number of bishops were absent. Kusebius of Dorybeum presented a new accusation against Dioscurus of Alexandria in which the charges of heresy and of injustice committed in the Robber Council of Ephesus were repeated. Three ecclesias- tics and a layman from Alexandria likewise presented lions against their bishop; he was declared guilty of many acts of injustice and of personal mis- conduct. At the end of the session the papal legates declared that Dioscurus should be deprived of his bishopric and of all ecclesiasticabdignities for having supported the heretic Eutychesi for having excom- municated Pope Leo, and for having refused to an- swer t he charges made against him. All the members present agreed to this proposition; and the decree of deposition was communicated to Dioscurus himself, to the Alexandrine ecclesiastics with him at Chalce- don.tothe Emperors Ma rcian and Valentinian III .and to t he Empress Pulcheria. The fourth session, which comprised two meetings, was held on 17 and 20 Octo- ber. At the request of the imperial commissioners the bishops again approved the dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I; Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Csesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eusta- thius of Berytus. and Basil of Seleucia in Cilicia, for- mer partisans of Dioscurus in the Robber Council of Ephesus, were pardoned and admitted to the sessions; an investigation was made into the orthodoxy of a number of bishops from Egypt, and of a number of monks and archimandrites suspected of Eutychian- i-m: finally a dispute between Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus concerning the territorial extent of their respective jurisdiction was adjudicated.

The most important of all the sessions was the fifth, held 22 < October; in this the bishops published a de- cree concerning the Christian Faith, which must be/ considered as the specific dogmatic decree of the/ fourth < ieneral Council. A special commission, con-) sistingol the papal legates, of Anatolius of Constant i-' Qople, Maximus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and several others, was appointed to draw up this creed or symbol. After again approving the decrees and sym- bols of the Councils of Niea:a (325), Constantinople (381 '. and Ephesus (431), as well as the teaching of St. Cyril against Nestorius and the dogmatic epistle / pe Leo I, the document in question declares:/ "We teach . . . one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, known in two natures, without con- fusion, without change, without division, without separation." After the recitation of the decree all the bishops exclaimed that such was the true faith,

and that all should at once sign their names to it. The imperial commissioners announced that they would communicate to the emperor the decree as approved by all the bishops. 'Phi- sixth (25 October) was celebrated with special solemnities;

Marcian and Pulcheria were present with a great at- tendance, w it It all t : i mere and the

Senate. The emperor made an appropriate a. Mi- llie decree of faith made in the preceding Session was read again and approved by the emperor; and with

joyful acclamations to the emperor and to the em- press, in which they were compared to Constantine and Helena, the proceedings were closed.

The object of the council was attained in the sixth session, and only secondary matters were transacted in the remaining sessions. The seventh and eighth sessions were both held 20 October. In the seventh an agreement between Maximus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem was approved, according to which the territory of the Patri- archate of Jerusalem was restricted to the three provinces of Palestine. In the eighth session Theo- doret of Cyrus, a former partisan of Nestorius, was compelled to condemn the name of his friend under threats of expulsion from the council. He was then reinstated in his bishopric. The ninth and tenth sessions (27 and 28 October) dealt with the case of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, who had been deposed on charges made by some of his ecclesiastics. The accu- sation proved to be unfounded, and Ibas was rein- stated in his office. A decision was also given to the effect that a pension should be paid by Maximus of Antioch to his deposed predecessor Domnus. The eleventh and twelfth sessions (29 and 30 October) dealt with a conflict between Bassianus and Stephen, both raised successively but. irregularly to the See of Ephesus. The council declared that a new bishop should be chosen for Ephesus, but the two aforesaid should retain their episcopal dignity and receive a pension from the church revenues of Ephe- sus. The thirteenth session (30 October) decided a case of conflicting jurisdiction. Eunomius of Nico- media and Anastasius of Nicsea both claimed metro- politan rights, at least for a part of Bithynia. The council decreed that in a province there could be only one metropolitan bishop, and in favour of the Bishop of Nicomedia.

The fourteenth session (31 October) decided the rival claims of Sabinian and Athanasius to the See of Perrha in Syria. Sabinian had been chosen in place of Athanasius deposed by an Antiochene synod in 445; later Athanasius was reinstated by the Robber Coun- cil of Ephesus. The council decreed that further in- vestigation should be made into the charges against Athanasius, Sabinian meanwhile holding the see. If the charges should prove untrue, Athanasius should be reinstated and Sabinian receive a pension from the diocese. In the same session a letter of Pope Leo was read, and the council approved the decisions in regard to Maximus of Antioch in his conflict with Juvenal of Jerusalem, and his obligation of providing for his predecessor Domnus. In the fif- teenth session (31 October) the council adopted and approved twenty-eight disciplinary canons. The papal legates, however, as well as the imperial com- missioners departed at the beginning of the session, probably foreseeing that the hierarchical status of the Bishop of Constantinople would be defined, as really occurred in canon xxviii. The first canon approved the canons passed in previous synods. The second establish. ■ .allies against those

who conferred ecclesiastical orders or positions for money, or received such orders or positions for money, and acted as intermediaries in such trans- actions. The third forbade secular traffic to all ecclesiastics, except in the interest of minors, or- phans, or other needy persons. The fourth forbade the erection of a monastery or an oratorj without the permission of the proper bishop; recommended to the monks a life of retirement. mortificat ion, and prayer;

and forbade the reception of a -lave in a monastery without the permission of his master. The lift h incul- cated the canons of previous synods concerning the transfer of bishops and clerics from one rit\ ti other. The sixth recommended that no one should be ordained except he were assigned to some ecclesias- tical otiiee. Those. provi-