49 A reconsideration of the ideal of stability in Byzantine monasticism 1.3.2 Council of Chalcedon (451) In addition to the Long Rules of Basil, Herman and later scholars refer to the Council of Chalcedon as evidence for regulations of monastic stability.167 This ecumenical council was held in Chalcedon in 451. Emperor Marcian (r. 450 – 457) summoned the council, probably under the influence of Pope Leo I and Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople. The council is mainly famous for its statement of the correct faith, formulating the relation between the divine and human natures of Christ. Although aiming for compromise, eventually the council led to a break between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches.168 The canons that were issued in the name of the council deal mostly with matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and hierarchy concerning bishops, other clergy and monks. Canon 4 has been interpreted as a regulation curbing monastic mobility, and prescribing monastic stability. This canon indeed deals (in part) with monastic mobility, but like the Long Rules of Basil, it mainly reflects contemporary concerns other than the mobility of monks. In contrast to previous councils, we have quite a detailed picture of the Council of Chalcedon due to the survival of its Acts – recordings of the sessions of the council. From these Acts we know that the main issues dealt with during the council were a trial of Dioscorus (patriarch of Alexandria, 444-451) and of others for their role at the council of Ephesus II (the ‘robber council’), the acceptance of the Tome of Leo I (pope 440-461), and, most significantly, as said, a new formulation of a definition of faith based on a two-nature Christology. After the discussions over these issues, dealt with during the first six sessions of the council (between October 8 to October 25, 451), the council proceeded in sessions 7 to 15 (October 26 – October 31, 451) to restorations of bishops and disputes over rival claims to episcopal sees after the many depositions and new instatements of bishops at the Council of Ephesus II in 449. A final session debated the status of the see of Constantinople.169 Not all decisions during the council were made during these recorded official sessions. Many discussions seem to have taken place during informal sessions that were not recorded. A notable example of this is the drafting of the new definition of faith: only the final result of the committee that was set this task was to be approved (or rejected) during the official session.170 Furthermore, during the last session a decree on the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan see was discussed, which had been formulated earlier during an informal meeting.171 The canons of the council of Chalcedon are also included in the Acts. It consists of a list of 27 canons. The absence of a date and a list of participants or signatories suggests that these canons were never discussed or debated during a formal session of the council, 167 Herman (1955), pp. 116–117; Nicol (1985), p. 194; Auzépy (2009), par. 4; Stammler (2014), p.135; Talbot (2019), p. 157. 168 For further bibliographies on the importance of Chalcedon, see the references in footnote 133. 169 The acts appear to be a more or less faithful recording of the official sessions of the council, with scribes carefully making minutes of the council for future reference. See Price and Gaddis (2007a); Price and Gaddis (2007b); Price and Gaddis (2007c); Graumann (2021). 170 Price and Gaddis (2007a), p. 78. 171 Price and Gaddis (2007c), p. 18. 1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw