The Decree of
Chalcedon expresses the Church’s faith in Christ who is divine and human; two
natures united, without division, confusion, separation or change, in one
person. Earlier, I posted regarding the Decree of Chalcedon in regard to
the first ‘in house’ decree of the Church of the East, The Synod of Mar Aqaq.
To read the Decree of Chalcedon as well as a later sample of how the
Church of the East digested the meaning of Chalcedon, please see my earlier posting here.
The statements,
canons and decision of councils that are accepted by the Church of the East are
found in a book named the Synodicon Orientale, which was published by J.B.
Chabot in 1902 under the title Synodicon Orientale ou Recuel de Synodes
Nestoriens [=SO]. The full Synodicon of the Church of the East has three
parts: The Councils of the Westerners (meaning local and ecumenical councils
considered authoritative at the time of Chalcedon); the Collection of the
Thirteen Patriarchal Synods (of the Church of the East); various letters
considered authoritative. Chabot gives us the second part only, the Collection
of the Thirteen Patriarchal Synods, and he provides a list of the contents of
parts one and three, from which we can hunt down the content, somewhat
successfully. It would be a blessing if the Church of the East would print an
authoritative Synodicon, in Syriac at least, if not also a careful English
translation.
Back to the point - the
Assyrian Church of the East accepted Chalcedon as an Ecumenical Council. In J.B.
Chabot’s 1902 edition, Synodicon Orientale, there are several expressed
statements of the Council of Chalcedon as an accepted council of the Assyrian
church. Here are two clear references from the Synodicon of the Church
of the East (translations mine):
“The Enumeration of
the Books of Canons [Synodal Statements]
which the Church of the East accepts, conforms to, and keeps. Western
and Eastern Synods: Apostolic Canons of the Fathers: which are accepted by and
by which functions the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church:
1. Canons of the Holy Apostles: 21 Canons
2. Again Those of the Apostles: 81 Canons
3. Of the Twelve Apostles: 7 sections
4. Synod of Anqura [Ancyra]: 24 canons
5. Synod of neoqesarya (Neocaesaria): 14 canons
6. Synod of Niqia (Nicea): 20 canons
7. Universal Synod: 73 Canons
8. Synod of Gangra: 20 canons
9. Synod of Antioch: 25 canons
10. Synod of Ladyqia: 59 canons
11. Synod of Contantinopolis: 4 canons
12. Synod of Chalcedon: 21 canons.(SO 610)"
Notice that the 12th
recognized synod is Chalcedon and is received among the “Eastern and Western
Synods”, which is an indication of the ecumenical content of these documents.
The Church of the East is explicitly expressing her Orthodoxy in conforming to these
canons. Historically speaking, there was a body of canonical material, called
the Syntagma Canonum Antiochenum, which was the master collection of
canonical material of the ecumenical era. Sometime around AD500 it was
translated into Syriac in Mabbug and did not contain Ephesus or the 85
Apostolic Canons until later in the sixth century. It seems that this Syntagma
Canonum Antiochenum is what the Church of the East has as the first part of
her canonical material.
Also, in the same Synodicon
Oritentale of the Church of the East is found the proclamation of the
synods accepted by the Church of the East at the time of Mar Awa the patriarch
and he reiterates Chalcedon as among the synods the Church of the East sees as
ecumenical: “Again, the declaration that was ordained by Mar Awa Patriarch and
the Bishops gathered with him…Those of the Synod of the five hundred and sixty
seven bishops gathered in Chalcedon” (SO 545)
For Orthodoxy, the
consideration that the Church of the East accepts Chalcedon proposes a new
perspective of the Assyrian Church. This does not do away with the question of
Nestorius or Theodore of Mopsuestia; however, it does mean that these two
churches share Chalcedon as a point of common ground. As the touchstone of
Orthodox Christology, the common expression of Chalcedon means that these two
Churches certainly have enough to dialogue about. It does not mean, however,
that issues such as the condemnation of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia or
the Council of Ephesus are not serious points of contention. Next we will deal
with how the text of Chalcedon is preserved in the Church of the East’s documents.
What we will be dealing with over the lifetime of this blog is whether
Chalcedon is received, interpreted and taught with the same end result in both
the Orthodox Church and the Church of the East.