WeOrthodox
EN UA
T theburningbush_podcast Instagram

Did Chalcedon Contradict the Fifth Ecumenical Council? An Oriental Orthodox Case

2:56

What the video says

The speaker, an Oriental Orthodox, argues that the Council of Chalcedon (451) accepted the Three Chapters—the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodore of Cyrus, and the letter of Ibas of Edessa—which were later condemned as Nestorian by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. He cites the tenth session of Chalcedon, where the Roman legates rehabilitated Ibas after reading his letter, which called Cyril an Apollinarian and praised Theodore of Mopsuestia.

He also notes that Theodore of Cyrus was rehabilitated after merely anathematizing Nestorius, without his writings being condemned. He concludes that Chalcedon directly contradicts the Fifth Council, and that even a Chalcedonian interlocutor ('Voice of Reason') confirms this, casting doubt on whether Chalcedon was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Key moments

  1. 0:00 The Orthodox objection against Pope Vigilius is that by accepting the Three Chapters he embraced Nestorianism, making him a bishop of Rome who taught heresy.
  2. 0:37 The Council of Chalcedon (451) accepted the Three Chapters, which the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned as Nestorian.
  3. 1:27 In the tenth session of Chalcedon, the letter of Ibas of Edessa was read to determine whether Ibas was Nestorian.
  4. 1:51 In the letter, Ibas calls Cyril an Apollinarian and praises Theodore of Mopsuestia as a teacher of the faith, criticizing those who condemn him.
  5. 2:07 The Roman legates at Chalcedon declared the letter perfectly orthodox and rehabilitated Ibas, showing acceptance of both the first and third chapters.
  6. 2:27 Theodore of Cyrus was tried at Chalcedon, claimed he was raised among the orthodox (including Theodore of Mopsuestia), and was rehabilitated after only anathematizing Nestorius, without any of his writings being condemned.

This post presents an Oriental Orthodox argument that the Council of Chalcedon (451) erred by rehabilitating figures and writings later condemned as Nestorian by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, 553). The speaker focuses on the so-called Three Chapters: the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and the letter of Ibas of Edessa.

He cites the tenth session of Chalcedon, where Roman legates declared Ibas's letter orthodox after it was read aloud—a letter in which Ibas calls St. Cyril of Alexandria an Apollinarian and praises Theodore of Mopsuestia as a teacher of the faith. Theodoret, likewise, was restored after merely anathematizing Nestorius, without his writings being examined or condemned.

The speaker concludes that Chalcedon directly contradicts Constantinople II, and argues that even a Chalcedonian interlocutor concedes the tension, casting doubt on whether the Holy Spirit guided Chalcedon. The discussion in the comments is substantive and two-sided. Supporters of the argument add that Chalcedon omitted Cyril's Third Letter to Nestorius and the Twelve Anathemas, suggesting Cyril's reception there was instrumental rather than genuine, and invoke Cyril's own letters to show he objected to two-natures language without proper qualifications.

Critics respond that the Three Chapters were not dogmatic decrees of Chalcedon but matters concerning persons and writings; that Constantinople II condemned specific Nestorian writings, not Chalcedon itself, and explicitly reaffirmed Chalcedon; and that Theodoret and Ibas were received only after making orthodox confessions. Others raise the parallel question of the Second Council of Ephesus and Eutyches, and debate whether the miaphysite formula's origins undermine the Oriental position.

The thread thus turns on whether the Fourth and Fifth Councils are genuinely irreconcilable, or whether later condemnation of specific writings is compatible with Chalcedon's earlier restorations.

Main points

  • The speaker argues Chalcedon accepted the Three Chapters, later condemned as Nestorian by the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
  • At Chalcedon's tenth session, Roman legates declared Ibas's letter—calling Cyril an Apollinarian—perfectly orthodox.
  • Theodoret of Cyrus was rehabilitated after only anathematizing Nestorius, without his writings being condemned.
  • Critics counter that Constantinople II condemned specific writings, not Chalcedon itself, and reaffirmed the Fourth Council.
  • Commenters also debate Cyril's reception at Chalcedon and the Oriental Orthodox view of the Second Council of Ephesus and Eutyches.
96 comments at the source Original on Instagram ↗

Discussion · 31

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

  • opinion#229

    The Three Chapters were not propositions dogmatically accepted at Chalcedon and then repudiated at Constantinople II. Rather, they concerned persons and writings associated with bishops whom Chalcedon had restored. Note too that Constantinople II does not anathematize Theodoret or Ibas personally the way it anathematizes Theodore of Mopsuestia; it condemns particular writings associated with them. Constantinople II condemned the Nestorianizing writings while insisting Chalcedon had never dogmatically endorsed them. (Similar to Chalcedon accepting Leo's Tome without accepting every claim Leo made about the Roman See.) Constantinople II presents itself as clarifying the authentically Cyrilline meaning of Chalcedon and shutting down a Nestorian interpretation of it, not correcting Chalcedon's Christology. In short, Constantinople II effectively says: Chalcedon must be read through Cyril, not through Theodore of Mopsuestia.

    • opinion#234

      The fifth council condemns as heretical the same letter the fourth council says is orthodox — that's a DIRECT contradiction.

    • opinion#235

      False. Where does Chalcedon, AS A COUNCIL, define the letter as orthodox? Showing that one or two judges deemed Ibas orthodox after reading/hearing his letter is not the same thing. And Constantinople II explicitly addresses those statements, distinguishes individual episcopal judgments from the Council's corporate determination, and points out that Chalcedon ultimately received Ibas only AFTER requiring him to anathematize Nestorius — the very doctrine defended in the letter.

    • opinion#236

      The presidents of the council declared the letter orthodox and nobody in the council objected — it's recorded in the minutes. The demand to anathematize Nestorius means nothing, since Nestorius was willing to anathematize Nestorius.

    • opinion#237

      False. The presidents did NOT declare the letter orthodox; they ratified the council's judgment regarding Ibas. And yes, Nestorius said "let Nestorius be anathema" — but precisely because he was willing to sacrifice his name while KEEPING HIS THEOLOGY. That's very different from anathematizing "Nestorius and his doctrine" while signing Chalcedon's faith. Again, identical wording doesn't mean identical meaning. The 5th Council knew the presidents' statements and explicitly identified them as remarks of "one or two," not Chalcedon's common doctrinal judgment.

    • opinion#238

      Well, 1. I don't want to overstate the argument as if the letters were dogmatic, but it carries weight against the critique of Chalcedon. The way you're handling it isn't very kind. Even if the letters weren't dogmatic and arguably not normally binding, the specific context of these Chapters being approved in the Council reveals what kind of atmosphere prevailed there (I'm not denying there were genuine strict Cyrillians, but I'd call their contribution insignificant, especially since the officials and the majority ignored them). It shows heretical people were present at Chalcedon (who, amusingly, were also at Ephesus 2) and accepted those Chapters. Receiving Theodoret while he explicitly claimed his teachers were orthodox is a real red flag. It's unacceptable — he called Cyril "of blessed memory" while never repudiating his writings against him, nor even attempting to. His private letters, like the one to John of Aegea, show us his actual doctrine (and the mental gymnastics people use to explain that away are unbelievable). It would be hypocritical to claim Chalcedon readmitted these men because they came to Cyril's faith. And the stated reason for convening Chalcedon (Eutyches' restoration) is a softer case anyway.

    • opinion#239

      2. We can confirm Eutyches was Cyrillian from what he confessed at both Constantinople 447 and Ephesus 449; what he did was reject a stronger dyophysite formula that he had no obligation to accept, let alone anathematize (given the sneaky Nestorianism around then). We don't see him associating with heretics (like Ibas and Theodoret), and the accusations against him rest on hearsay. Same for Ephesus 2 — the strongest charge [of heresy] one could raise is the acceptance of "from two before the union," only because there's no explicit earlier use of that phrase (as far as I know), but it's implicit in Cyril's writings anyway. Compare that with Chalcedon and its sneaky drift back toward Nestorianism (which Cyril himself warned about). Also, anathematizing "Nestorius and his doctrine" isn't so different from Nestorius' own metric. He was fine with it not because anathemas were taken personally. If you truly anathematize his teaching, you'd have to explain how your framework differs from his in terms and metaphysics (which Chalcedon never did). And I wouldn't even say the wording was exactly the same. Nestorius held a union of persons, while those men merely affirmed two natures (obviously particulars) concurring in a single person. It's quite easy to see it's the same thing.

    • opinion#240

      Brother, I think your first paragraph is a much stronger formulation, and I'll grant part of it: Chalcedon had Antiochene bishops with genuinely troubling histories, and Theodoret especially shouldn't be sanitized. I also wouldn't simplistically say he had "become Cyrillian." But that differs from claiming Chalcedon "approved the Three Chapters." Theodore wasn't approved, Theodoret's anti-Cyrilline writings weren't approved, and when Theodoret said "I was taught by the orthodox," the bishops explicitly rejected that answer and demanded, "Anathema to Nestorius AND HIS DOCTRINE." The 5th Council later condemning those writings therefore clarifies a real ambiguity without reversing a Chalcedonian dogma. — I also think calling the Cyrillians insignificant at Chalcedon goes too far. The officials themselves invoke Cyril's canonical letters, the council formally receives them, Leo is judged as agreeing with Cyril, and the Definition names Cyril as part of its doctrinal foundation. Whatever the politics, Cyril clearly functions as the criterion of orthodoxy. — On Eutyches, I agree the older caricature deserves reevaluation; serious scholarship argues he saw himself in a Cyrillian trajectory. But that doesn't prove every element of his confession was authentically Cyrillian. In 448 he initially said he had never confessed Christ's flesh consubstantial with ours, while Cyril…

    • opinion#241

      Brother, there are literally zero EO clergy or theologians who are Nestorian. I don't get why that trope persists. Chalcedon is understood THROUGH Cyril. That should be reason for the OO to rejoice and pursue reunion. Instead we get this trickle of polemics. Let's put it behind us and embrace the Orthodox Faith together, as the joint statement of the 90s said.

  • opinion#231

    Simply put: while the 4th council accepted the Three Chapters, the 5th rejected them on account of the substantial issues that came with accepting them — which, if you accept Chalcedon, means the Holy Spirit made a mistake.

  • opinion#233

    So I'm curious — why didn't the Orientals accept the 5th council? Too little too late?

    • opinion#242

      Because by then the two families were divided, and the Oriental Orthodox church wasn't invited. How can they accept a council where they had no chance to present their position, whether in opposition or agreement?

    • opinion#243

      I'm really sick of this victim-mentality nonsense. They thought they had the entirety of orthodoxy figured out and decided they were too good, orthodox enough, to show up. Don't call it two families either — theologically we're nowhere near the same, no matter how often you claim it's language errors and semantics. That's just a cop-out for anyone unwilling to do the work of understanding the real differences, which amount to two different confessions of faith: one an idolized version of the revealed God, one worship of the true triune God. Giving these half-baked answers to people who don't know better just misleads and confuses them in an already complex situation. If you haven't done the work to learn why the split has lasted over 2000 years, don't misguide those who don't know.

  • opinion#232

    Did you say the 4th Council of Chalcedon accepted what the 5th Council of Constantinople decided? If so, how is that possible considering the 5th occurred after the 4th?

    • opinion#244

      Lol, listen to what he's saying, don't just hear the words.

    • opinion#245

      I did listen, which is exactly why I asked for clarification. Do you have anything of your own to contribute?

    • opinion#246

      He's saying the 5th council anathematized what the 4th council accepted — effectively meaning the Chalcedonians contradicted themselves, not only against Ephesus but later against Chalcedon itself, trying to save face.

    • opinion#247

      I gave it; it's more than clear for anyone actually listening.

    • opinion#248

      There's no accusation, just listen to what was said. Get over yourself.

    • opinion#249

      You accused me of not listening — own your mistake and give a direct answer. Be a Christian man, for God's sake.

    • opinion#250

      No, I encouraged you to listen better. Maybe read better too.

    • opinion#251

      You're failing Matthew 25:31-46 with this attitude. Please act like an actual Christian, because your snide remarks are really testing my patience. All I did was ask for clarification — I don't understand why that's so hard for you to grasp.

  • opinion#228

    Excellent work. The more I learn about Chalcedon the more suspect it seems. A related question: I've recently found out the Orientals accept the '2nd council of Ephesus'. Would you therefore claim Eutyches' teaching wasn't erroneous? I understand he wasn't properly Miaphysite but MONOphysite.

  • opinion#230

    Oriental Orthodox have a different view of the hypostatic union of Jesus than both EO and RC accept. Nestorianism taught Jesus was two separate persons, one human and one divine, only loosely connected — which both churches reject. Monophysitism took the exact opposite view: that after Jesus was born, His human and divine natures blended into only one nature — also a heresy. Though RC and EO claim the Oriental Orthodox aren't in heresy, it's hard for me to see how they're not.

  • opinion#221

    4. And to finally support the case that Chalcedon isn't really what Cyril would have accepted, I'll invoke what Cyril says in Letters 40 & 44. He tells us his problem wasn't simply with two natures, but with an understanding of it without enough qualifications. He says the problem with Nestorians is that they don't confess the union as he does. And I'd say that's why I'm OO and reject Chalcedon. Chalcedon wasn't a 100% evil anti-Cyrillian Nestorian uno-reverse card; it tried to accept some of Cyril and there were good people inside who later consented under duress. But it failed to achieve an uncompromised Orthodox faith due to Imperial bias, intentional Nestorians like Theodoret trying to shove their teachings into it, and Rome's effort to make Leo and the erroneous Tome criteria of Orthodoxy. Even you granted that I can argue it maintained a framework liable to Nestorian interpretation (very intellectually honest of you). That's the problem: it didn't posit enough guidelines to maintain the union Cyril believed in, and so falls to an inadequate Nestorian (take the term fluidly) union. Hence OOs weren't appeased with Chalcedon. Whether the difference between Neochalcedonian and Miaphysite formulations is real or merely semantic, we can't accept Constantinople 2 because it still makes Chalcedon an authority. Anyone discerning this case has to take that seriously. God bless!

  • opinion#222

    3. Sorry for bringing up Eutyches, I was just comparing his case with Theodoret's. I'd agree we can't know whether Eutyches was personally Orthodox (especially given the straightforward, neutrally produced accusations by Eusebius of Dorylaeum in the 447 home Synod). But from what Eutyches said at trial, we don't find heretical confessions. He denied double-consubstantiality, but affirmed it later and was further pushed by Eusebius and Basil of Seleucia to confirm "two natures after the incarnation," a formula that would shock not only the confused Eutyches but any uncompromising Cyrillian of the time. We see Eusebius being a bit mad at Basil for merely tolerating the one incarnate nature formula. I believe Constantinople 2 proposes the same in its 8th canon, but that'd actually go further. I also suggest they might be reading "one incarnate nature" as the nature of the Word with a human nature, with "nature" functioning as a particular — because of Flavian of Constantinople's correspondence. He used the one incarnate nature formula in his appeal to Emperor Theodosius while distinguishing dweller and dwelling, and mentioned Christ and an assumed man in one person/son in his letter to Leo. Mind you, Leo completely denied one nature in any way (I'm also compelled that he often uses nature as a particular). About Theodoret: he merely claimed to anathematize Nestorius with his…

  • opinion#223

    2. Also on the reception of Cyril at Chalcedon, I think it was not genuine but a tool of the officials to accomplish what they wanted. The omission of the Third Letter to Nestorius and the Twelve Anathemas (arguably dogma, since that's why the Nestorians anathematized Ephesus 1 at the 431 Counter-Synod) isn't nice for an Ecumenical Council. If one reason Dioscorus was deposed and Ephesus 2 called a "robber synod" was the omission of Leo's letter, how is the omission of Cyril's important letters tolerable at Chalcedon? Moreover, in Session I, Eustathius of Berytus (who later signed the Tome under duress) recited Cyril's letters 40, 44, 45, 46 & 50 to clarify the two "canonical letters" by Cyril's own words, willing to be anathematized with the books. Most scholars think we should abide by the two canonical letters and aren't bound by everything in Cyril's private letters. But in my opinion, we ought to subscribe to what Cyril believed even post-433 in his private letters if we truly venerate him as a Saint and Criterion of Orthodoxy. We see Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople, taking Letter 40 (not a canonical letter) out of context to defend Leo's Tome against the Illyrian bishops in Session II. How can we say letters telling us not to speak of two natures after the union except in theory alone (rationalization undoes the union and is done away with) aren't Orthodox or…

  • opinion#224

    1. I agree the Three Chapters aren't decisions of Chalcedon. But that case shows the Council would go to the level of such things happening within it. It's like citing Martin Luther's rejection of James to prove James refutes Sola Fide — the argument doesn't necessarily follow, but it's worth noting when describing how James 2 refutes Sola Fide in context. Similarly, the acceptance of the Three Chapters shows how bad Chalcedon's tendency was and the probability of shoving in Nestorianism. Look at Theodoret's acceptance: when he said his teachers were Orthodox, they just wanted him to anathematize Nestorius. In return he anathematized Nestorius (which Nestorius was fine with) and those who say two sons or deny the Virgin is Theotokos. But that's not enough to restore him. You could say those same things and still hold a prosopic union (especially treating hypostasis as prosopon) with two particulars subsisting, even in Cyril's time. Nestorius was fine affirming one son, one hypostasis, even Theotokos in a qualified sense, making the communicatio idiomatum verbal. We already have Theodoret sitting among the accusers in Session I because of Leo and the officials — the same scenario as Eutyches in Ephesus 2 that caused Chalcedon to be convened. Therefore Theodoret's reception is a clear failure showing the Council's imprudence and how it fails to act more justly than Ephesus 2.

  • opinion#225

    I've seen it. I'll probably reply tomorrow since I have to go to Church today. But I definitely want to hear more of what you think, to see if I have to reconsider Chalcedon (we can talk in DMs). God bless!

  • opinion#226

    This has already been addressed and clarified, but why is it always brushed aside when it's pointed out that the Miaphysis formula and "one incarnate nature of God the Word" originated verbatim with Apollinarius, who despised the Cappadocian Fathers — the orthodox standard — whom Severus also equally despised? One-nature Christology was specifically formulated to counter the Cappadocian Fathers' Christology as quoted by Apollinarius and his disciples, in the same spirit Severus loved and fit his narrative. The entire Oriental one-nature Christology tries to take Apollinarius's original dichotomic model and repurpose it as orthodox against dyophysitism, which clearly demonstrates the ill intent of Severus and of Dioscorus when he went after St Cyril's family. Why would he go after them if he didn't believe St Cyril actually held two-natures Christology? His citing Apollinarian forgeries doesn't mean his heart always stayed true to orthodox Christology. That can't be said for the Oriental Apollinarian "miaphysites," whose formula's father is Apollinarius.

  • opinion#227

    The 4th and 5th Ecumenical Councils aren't contradictory. Chalcedon received Theodoret and Ibas after they rejected Nestorius and made an orthodox confession. The 5th Council later condemned specific writings of the "Three Chapters" that contained or defended Nestorian teaching. It did not simply declare Chalcedon an error. In fact, the 5th Ecumenical Council explicitly reaffirmed Chalcedon and defended its Orthodox Christology. So condemning problematic writings later isn't the same as declaring the earlier council invalid. You're confusing the reception of a person into communion after repentance with the judgment of particular writings that person produced.