Interactive Transcript
The Council of Nicaea by no means, wholly resolved the most important question of all, who is Jesus Christ?
The position of Athanasius, which prevailed at the council did not entirely take hold. And there were dramatic shifts in theological sympathies.
The result of this council was a pro-Arian statement, which was then roundly denounced by Pope Liberius.
The emperor Constantine, we remember, had distinctly pro-Arian sympathies towards the end of his reign.
Let's remind ourselves of the differences, for Arians, broadly speaking, Jesus Christ was created by the father. They stressed the indivisibility of God over against the trinity.
Arianism, however, was by no means the only position in the debate. We find the emergence of the Monophysites, who held that Christ remained divine and not human even though he took human form in an earthly body.
The Monophysites rejected the position of the two natures, divine and human as would be asserted at the council of Chalcedon. The question was how did Christ's humanity and divinity relate to one another, and major figures such as Apollinaris the Younger who lived from 310 to 390 considered how the two perfections became one, and he argued that it was the human that would have to compromise. In another significant position that emerged was that of Nestorius of Antioch who died in 451. He argued that Christ had two natures, meaning that God had not really become human, but had been united with a human.
Christ was one, Nestorius wrote, but as if with two eyes separated into the human and the divine nature.
We've discussed that the emperor Theodosius called the second council in 381, and affirmed the creed of the first Nicene council.
Nevertheless, much of the Christian world was Arian in sympathy. The Vandals In North Africa, the Visigoth in Spain, and the Lombards in Italy.
A compromise between the Catholic and Arian positions was established at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
The Council was called to condemn Nestorius. But in a statement on Christ's nature, at Ephesus, stressed his two natures.
But this resolution did not hold, and in 449 there was another Council At Ephesus, which took the Monophysite position that Christ had but one nature.
Resolution came at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Chalcedon in modern day Turkey was located close to Constantinople.
It became known as the fourth ecumenical council after Nicaea of 325, Constantinople of 381 and Ephesus 431. The council was called by the Emperor
The complexity of the situation regarding Christ was evident among the prominent leaders who gathered at the Council and who held a variety of positions.
Such was the complexity that it's impossible for us to map out their Marius manifestations. The imperial counselors, however, demanded that a statement of faith be made by the Council.
And it was at this time Pope Leo I's Tome was enthusiastically received. Rome sought to assert its influence on the proceedings.
The Romans saw a line of orthodoxy that began with Nicaea in 325, extended through Constantinople in 381, Ephesus in 431 and then to the work of Leo's Tome.
As far as they were concerned, the major enemies was one Eutyches on the other hand and Nestorius on the other. The first, Eutyches defended only one nature of Christ. Nestorius, as we have said, spoke of two separate persons.
The statement issued at Chalcedon argued that the two natures of Christ, divinity and humanity, were neither divided nor separate.
The Chalcedon definition was pronounced Christ to be perfect God and perfect man, consubstantial with the Father in his Godhead and with us in his humanity.
This position of Constantine was brought together from a variety of sources and persons, including the Tome of Leo I.
After the seventh century, outside the regions of the eastern church where the Monophysites remained, Chalcedon would emerge as the major statement of the church on Christology. The debate over Christ was not easily healed and enduring divisions tore at the very fabric of the church. Many attempts at reconciliation were made, but unity prove elusive.