The Seven Ecumenical Councils (Schaff series)

The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two. Vol. 14.

This volume is a list of the canons of each council with running commentary by the then-leading patristic scholars.  The subtitle can read: “Getting the Bishops to Behave.”  While the format is not user-friendly, as the reader who just wants a list of the canons might be reading for a while, the knowledge is certainly learned and welcome.

Although the book is labeled The Seven Ecumenical Councils, many of the more important regional councils (e.g., Carthage, Sardica, Trullo) are listed.  Pride of place, both in history and in this review, is given to Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.

Nicea

Although the Nicene Creed is close to the Nicene-Constantinapolitan Creed, there are differences.  For one, Jesus is begotten “of the substance of the Father.”  Does that make a big difference?  Maybe, although I cannot think of one at the moment. 

The canons of Nicea make for interesting reading, though little of it is of much theological substance.  Canon 17 condemns clergy who take interest on loans (36).  Canon 20 warns against associating with wizards (47).  Absent from the canons is any discussion of the canon of Scripture.  This is important on at least two grounds.  For one, we have no record here of the church “creating a canon.”  Moreover, we have no record here of Constantine deciding which books are in the canon of scripture.

Ephesus

Ostensibly convened to deal with the problem of Nestorius and whether one can call Mary the Mother of God, the Council of Ephesus provided us with the pinnacle of Christological reflection. Cyril of Alexandria, the sphragidis ton pateron, the seal of the Fathers, cogently argued that “was made flesh,” and not merely united to the person of man (198).  He was not “converted into flesh, [but] he made his indwelling in such a way as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body” (202-203).  He is “hypostatically one in flesh.”

Cyril will speak of “two natures,” but it is “of two” (ek duo), transfering the human and divine to the person.  He follows with a list of anathemas against Nestorius:

1. … those who refuse to call Mary “Theotokos.”
2. … who refuse to say the Logos was united hypostatically to flesh.
3. (This anathema is misleading, for it speaks of those who “after the hypostatic union divide the hypostases in the one Christ. By hypostasis Cyril does not mean “person.” He means “existent reality” of a thing.  In a sense, Cyril anathematizes those who divide the natures after the union, but even then nature does not mean what later thinkers meant by it).

Chalcedon

For us today, Chalcedon might be a victim of its own familiarity.  We speak of the two natures of Christ remaining unconfused, undivided, etc. We often miss the subtle metaphysical themes at play. Chalcedon had to respond to a number of challenges.  It had to rebuke Eutyches, who saw human nature absorbed into the divine, yet it had to be careful not to fall into Nestorianism.  It is best captured in the Tome of Leo, the highlights of which are noted below:

“For each of the natures retains its proper character without defect; and as the form of God does no take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does not impair the form of God” (255).

“For each “form” does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one shines in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries” (256).

Session II goes on to say that “Leo and Cyril taught the same thing” (259).  At the risk of anathema, I do not see how Cyril would agree with this.  Cyril anathematized those who spoke of two “existent realities” after the union.  Leo does precisely that. Natures do not act.  Persons do. Christopher Beeley openly states that “Leo’s position is essentially the same as Nestorius” (Beeley, Unity of Christ, 276). Chalcedon bypasses the earlier narrative dynamics of Gregory and Cyril (economy of salvation) and moves into technical language (282).

We also do not see as much (if at all) talk of the Word uniting to the properties of flesh.  I do not think that is accidental. “Flesh” does not easily allow a tidy separation of natures after the union.

The Synod of Laodicea gives us a snapshot of what a worship service looked like.  

“The Congregation is gathered together, the men on one side and the women on the other.
1) The readings immediately begin. The are interrupted with chants,

2) These psalms are chanted antiphonally.

3) The bishop, if present, gives the homily.

4) The catachumens are dismissed before the mysteries are celebrated.

5) The communicants then pray the standard, “For the peace and good estate of the world…”

6) They then chant the “Sursum Corda.”

7) As the eucharist is celebrated, the people chant Ps. 34.

Conclusion

The format of this volume, as with many Schaff volumes, leaves much to be desired.  Key councils are often hard to find, and when found, they are usually buried within, not footnotes, by side-column explanations of some text a few pages earlier.  Nonetheless, this volume has remained a standard “go-to” for good reason.