The Council of Chalcedon from the Coptic Orthodox Perspective

The Council of Chalcedon from the Coptic Orthodox Perspective

• The Coptic Orthodox Church firmly rejects the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) and its decisions, recognising only the first three Ecumenical Councils: Nicaea (325 AD), Constantinople (381 AD), and Ephesus (431 AD). ¹
• Chalcedon is not considered ecumenical or orthodox but rather a council that introduced divisive and potentially Nestorian elements into Christology. ¹
• The Council deviated from the orthodox faith established by St Cyril of Alexandria. Its acceptance of Pope Leo I's Tome and the formula of Christ "in two natures" (en dyo physesin) is seen as risking a separation of the divine and human in Christ, effectively reviving the heresy of Nestorius.²
• In spite of the fact that the Council of Ephesus had excommunicated Nestorius, the Nestorian roots extended to influence the Council of Chalcedon, where the trend to separate the two natures became so apparent that it was said that Christ is two persons, a God and a human being; the one works miracles, and the other accepts insults and humiliation. ³
• The Coptic Church was misunderstood at Chalcedon and unfairly accused of following Eutyches' monophysitism (absorption of the human nature into the divine). However, the Church has never accepted true monophysitism and explicitly condemns Eutyches. ⁴
• The Church holds to miaphysitism: the one united incarnate nature of God the Word (Mia Physis tou Theou Logou Sesarkomene), as taught by St Cyril—one composite, inseparable reality after the union, without confusion, change, division, or separation.⁵
• Key reasons for rejection include theological concern: The phrase "in two natures" after the Incarnation suggests persistence of division, contrary to St Cyril's emphasis on perfect unity. Natures do not act independently; the one Person of Christ acts. ⁶
• Key reasons for rejection include rehabilitation of Nestorian figures: The Council restored Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, seen as Nestorian sympathisers. ⁷
• Key reasons for rejection include unjust treatment of St Dioscorus: Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria (25th Pope) defended Cyrilline orthodoxy but was deposed and exiled through political pressure and irregularities.
• The Coptic Church venerates him as a saint and confessor (commemorated on 7 Thout). ⁸
• Key reasons for rejection include political influences: The Council was driven by imperial politics under Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria to favour Rome and Constantinople over Alexandria. ⁹
• The Coptic Orthodox Church confesses that our Lord Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect Man, with one united nature from two natures—divine and human—united hypostatically without mingling, confusion, alteration, division, or separation. This is the faith of St Athanasius, St Cyril, and St Dioscorus. ¹⁰
• Following Chalcedon, the faithful in Egypt rejected the imposed Chalcedonian bishop, leading to persecution under Byzantine rule for nearly 200 years until the Arab conquest in 641 AD. The Coptic Church maintained a parallel hierarchy, preserving the Orthodox faith. ¹¹

Historical and Critical Analysis from Non-Chalcedonian Scholars

• Father V.C. Samuel, in his work The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, offers a critical analysis that challenges the traditional Western and Byzantine narratives of the 451 assembly.
• His perspective centres on the idea that the council was a partisan event that failed to resolve the actual theological crisis of the fifth century and instead formalised a permanent split based on political and jurisdictional agendas.
• Narrative of the Victors: Samuel argues that historical accounts are often written by the "admirers" of an event, and the story of Chalcedon as propagated by the West needs to be modified to include the perspective of its critics.
• The Status of Eutyches: A central assumption of the council was that Eutyches was a confirmed heretic; however, Samuel contends that Eutyches was not a theologian of standing and that the council never established a charge of heresy against him based on actual evidence.
• Interpretation of the Faith: The real issue was a conflict between Alexandrine (Word-flesh) and Antiochene (Word-man) traditions. While both sides accepted the Nicene Creed, they disagreed on how the union of natures was to be understood following the 433 Reunion.
• Unfair Treatment of Dioscorus: Samuel views the treatment of Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria as a "denial of justice". At the council's opening, he was forced to sit in the centre as an accused party simply because he had presided over the Council of 449 without Rome's prior authorisation.
• Deposition Without Heresy: Dioscorus was deposed not for theological error, but for "violation of canons" and failing to respond to a third summons. Samuel argues the true reason for Rome’s antagonism was Dioscorus's refusal to sign the Tome of Leo.
• The "Blank Papers" Allegation: The claim that Dioscorus forced bishops to sign blank papers at Ephesus in 449 was, according to Samuel, likely a fabrication or a distortion used to isolate him at Chalcedon.
• Ultimatum on the Definition: Samuel notes that the majority of Eastern bishops initially wanted a definition stating Christ was "from two natures" (ek). However, they were forced to accept the Western/Antiochene phrase "in two natures" (en) after the imperial commissioners gave them an ultimatum to follow Leo or Dioscorus.
• Vagueness of the Formula: The final Chalcedonian Definition was a "compromise formula" made deliberately vague so that different traditions could interpret it in their own way.
• Restoration of Theodoret and Ibas: Samuel points out a double standard in the council’s restoration of Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa. While Pope Leo restored them without establishing grounds, the Eastern bishops only acquitted them after forcing them to expressly anathematise Nestorius.
• Samuel concludes that the Council of 451 did not achieve anything for "orthodoxy" that its critics had not already maintained.
• From his perspective, the non-Chalcedonian body was not "monophysite" in the sense of denying Christ's humanity but rather felt the council had violated the established tradition of St Cyril.
• Ultimately, the council served the papal claims of Rome and the political rank of Constantinople more than it served theological clarity.
• Analogy: Samuel describes the council not as a clear map for the church but as a legal trial where the judge and the prosecutor were the same party; the verdict was decided before the evidence was heard, and the result was a "peace" that only existed on paper while the actual family remained divided.

Primary Coptic Sources

• Teachings of H.H. Pope Shenouda III in The Nature of Christ
• Coptic Synaxarion and History of the Patriarchs
• Official statements from the Coptic Orthodox Church
• Fr Shenouda M. Ishak, Christology and the Council of Chalcedon¹²
• Coptic Orthodox Church statements on ecumenical relations and ecclesiastical families¹³

Endnotes

1. Coptic Orthodox Church, "The Ecumenical Councils", https://copticorthodox.church/en/holy-synod/ecumenical-councils/
2. Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles, "Copts Throughout the Ages", https://www.lacopts.org/story/copts-throughout-the-ages/
3. H.H. Pope Shenouda III, The Nature of Christ, "The Council of Chalcedon", https://st-takla.org/books/en/pope-shenouda-iii/nature-of-christ/council-of-chaicedon.html
4. Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles, "Copts Throughout the Ages", https://www.lacopts.org/story/copts-throughout-the-ages/
5. H.H. Pope Shenouda III, The Nature of Christ, "The Orthodox Concept regarding the Nature of Christ," https://st-takla.org/books/en/pope-shenouda-iii/nature-of-christ/orthodox-concept.html
6. H.H. Pope Shenouda III, The Nature of Christ, various sections including "Which of the two natures does the Church of Alexandria deny?"
7. Coptic Orthodox Church, "Coptic History", https://copticorthodox.church/en/coptic-church/coptic-history/
8. Coptic Synaxarium, "The Departure of St Dioscorus, 25th Pope of Alexandria" (7 Thout), https://st-takla.org/books/en/church/synaxarium/01-toot/07-tout-dioscorus.html; also https://www.copticchurch.net/synaxarium/1_7.html
9. Coptic Orthodox Church, "Coptic History", https://copticorthodox.church/en/coptic-church/coptic-history/
10. H.H. Pope Shenouda III, The Nature of Christ, "The Orthodox Concept regarding the Nature of Christ"
11. Coptic Orthodox Church, "Coptic History", https://copticorthodox.church/en/coptic-church/coptic-history/
12. Fr Shenouda M. Ishak, Christology and the Council of Chalcedon (Outskirts Press, 2013)
13. Coptic Orthodox Church statements on ecumenical relations and ecclesiastical families, https://copticorthodox.church/en/holy-synod/ecclesiastical-families/