Podcasts about theodosius ii

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

On May 29, 1453, Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II captured Constantinople, bringing an end to over a thousand years of Byzantine rule. The city's formidable walls, which had stood nearly impenetrable for eight centuries, finally fell to hisforces. With its conquest, Constantinople was declared the new capital of the Ottoman Empire. Some historians marked this conquest as the end of the Middle Ages. Built by Theodosius II to safeguard the "New Rome," these walls stretched from the Golden Horn to the Sea of Marmara, marking the borders of ancient Istanbul. Through centuries of earthquakes, sieges, and urban expansion, their gates and fortifications have endured, preserving the legacy of the city's past. To discuss the world-history importance of this conquest is today's guest, Alexander Christie-Miller, author of “To The City: Life and Death Along the Ancient Walls of Istanbul.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

This is part 21 of the Early Church History class. In the fifth century Christians waged a theological civil war that ended in a massive church split. The issue was over the dual natures of Christ. How was he both divine and human? Did he have a human soul and a divine soul? Did his two natures fuse into one new nature? Although such abstruse distinctions would hardly get anyone's blood boiling today, these doctrinal distinctives resulted in a zero sum war for supremacy involving not only theological argumentation, but also political conniving and outright gangster tactics in the battles that led to the famous Council of Chalcedon in 451. Though church history textbooks often whitewash this period of theological creativity, this episode will give you a brief but unapologetic overview of the major players and their deeds in the dual natures controversy. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKQafdCPXAk&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=21&pp=iAQB —— Links —— More Restitutio resources on Christian history See other classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Options for Two Natures Athanasius (c. 357) affirmed Jesus as God and man but did not explain how the natures united. He called Mary Theotokos (God-bearer). Apollinarius of Laodicea (d. 382) said the Word became flesh without assuming a human mind (Apollinarianism). Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390) condemned Apollinarius and said that what God has not assumed, he has not healed. Eutyches of Constantinople (380-456) said the divine and human natures combined to form one new nature (Eutychianism/Monophysitism) Nestorius (c. 429) denied Mary as Theotokos, calling her instead Christotokos, and allegedly taught that Christ had two distinct natures in two persons (Nestorianism/dyophysitism). Leo I said Christ had two natures united in person, though the two natures remained distinct (Chalcedonian dyophysitism). Condemning John Chrysostom John Chrysostom represented the Antiochene school of thought (as opposed to the Alexandrian). 397 Chrysostom became bishop of Constantinople. Eudoxia, wife of the emperor Arcadius, worked with Theophilus of Alexandria to depose Chrysostom. 403 Synod of the Oak deposed Chrysostom. 404 Chrysostom exiled. 407 Chrysostom marched to death Condemning Nestorius 428 Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople. He immediately began persecuting “heretics” as a defender of orthodoxy. 429 Anastasius of Antioch preached in Constantinople that no one should call Mary Pulcheria, sister of emperor Theodosius II, worked with Cyril of Alexandria to depose Nestorius. 431 1st Council of Ephesus deposed Nestorius. Condemning Flavian 446 Flavian became bishop of Constantinople. 448 Held a synod that interrogated and condemned Eutyches 449 2nd Council of Ephesus reinstated Eutyches and condemned Flavian. Dioscorus of Alexandria instigated violence against Flavian that resulted in his death. Known to history as the “Robber Synod” Chalcedon 450 Theodosius II fell from his horse and died, leaving Pulcheria, his sister the nun, to marry Marcian, the new emperor. 451 Marcian and Pulcheria called the council at Chalcedon to reverse the 2nd Council of Ephesus and depose Dioscorus. Pope Leo's tome was read and accepted. After much debate, they codified the definition of Chalcedon, declaring Mary as Theotokos and Christ as having two natures in one person. When Nestorius read Leo's tome, he agreed with him and called it orthodox. Several important groups of churches, both Nestorian and Monophysite, rejected Chalcedon, including Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, and Persia. Review Deciding how the divine and human natures worked in Christ became the chief focus for many Christians in the fifth century. Apollinarius of Laodice proposed that the logos (Word) replaced the human mind, the rational part of the soul, in Christ (Apollinarianism). Eutyches proposed that Christ was one nature after the union of the divine and human (monophysitism). Pope Leo I said the two natures retained their distinctive characters in the one person of Christ (dyophysitism). Nestorius allegedly taught that the two natures in Christ were not united in one person (Nestorianism), though this was probably a misrepresentation of Cyril of Alexandria. Powerful Alexandrian bishops worked with powerful empresses to outmaneuver and depose Constantinopolitan bishops John Chrysostom in 404 and Nestorius in 431. Nestorius tried to steer people away from calling Mary Theotokos (God-bearer) by calling her Christotokos (Christ-bearer), but this offended many. Alexandrian bishops from Theophilus to Cyril to Dioscorus increasingly used gangster tactics to intimidate, coerce, beat, and even kill their theological-political opponents. The Chalcedonian definition of 451 condemned Nestorius and Eutyches while endorsing Cyril and Leo, promoting a diophysite statement of two natures in one person, united but not confused. Though trumpeted as "orthodox", Chalcedon alienated a huge portion of Christianity, including the Coptic Church, Ethiopian Church, Syrian Church, Armenian Church, and Assyrian Church.

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

De stora guldskatterna från folkvandringstiden som hittats i Sverige ruvar på hemligheter om tribut, rov, krigstjänst och trafficking. Vem har inte drömt om att hitta en stenyxa, en gammal guldring eller kanske rentav en silverskatt från vikingatiden? Tureholmsskatten (12 kilo guld), Timboholmsskatten (sju kilo guld), Vitteneskatten (1,9 kilo guld) och Havorringen (800 gram guld) är några guldskatter som döpts efter platserna de hittats på. Det är inte bara arkeologer som gör sådana upptäckter. För många bönder har detta blivit verklighet när de plöjt sina åkrar, brutit sten och grävt diken. I en nymixad version av sjätte avsnittet av podden Historia Nu samtalar programledaren Kristina Ekero Eriksson med arkeologen Kent Andersson om de mest spännande guldskatterna vi hittat i Sverige. Guldet kan ha varit lön till nordiska soldater som arbetade för Rom, tribut till germanska stammar eller förtjänsten från trafficking av slavar. En menig soldat i romerska armén fick fem solidusmynt per tjänstgöringsår. Ett solidusmynt skulle vara av rent guld och väga 4,54 gram. Det krävs minst 1 500 solidi för att uppnå en vikt på cirka sju kilo. Hunnernas kung Attila, däremot, fick vid mitten av 400-talet en årlig utbetalning från den östromerske kejsaren Theodosius II på över 150 000 solidi, samt en engångssumma på 432 000 solidi. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

One of the most powerful woman in the Ancient World - Pulcheria was a Eastern Roman empress who advised her brother emperor Theodosius II  and then became wife to emperor Marcian.  Her influence of Christian dogma is huge and she convened some of the most significant Church Councils 

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

29 December 2019 The Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph Matthew 2:13-15, 19-23 + Homily 16 Minutes 45 Seconds  Link to the Readings: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/122919.cfm (New American Bible, Revised Edition)   From the parish bulletin:   An architect knows where all the doors in a house will lead because he designed it. That is why man-made religions can seem plausible, being the product of human imagination. That is also why the fact that Christ is a divine reality, or “Person,” while having two natures, challenges human understanding, because it is not a human invention. In these days of Christmas, a good way to avoid reducing the Incarnation’s mysterious meaning to simple expressions of goodwill and Dickensian jollity, is to read the Athanasian Creed, focusing on the lines: “Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ. And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed unto God. He is one, not by a mingling of substances, but by unity of person.”     A sure way to get the Incarnation wrong is to try to use mere human imagery to explain it. One recent attempt, with the best of intentions, was to make an analogy between the two natures of Christ and the mixed races of “mestizos” who are part European and part American Indian. This echoes the mistake of the monk Eutyches (d. 454), who imagined the divinity and humanity of Christ as fused into a sort of homogenized third reality, half God and half Man. Not to make light of such a serious mistake, but it reminds one of the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta “Iolanthe,” named for a woodland fairy who bears a son, Strephon, fathered by a mortal man. Strephon’s problem is that he is half sprite and halfhuman, so when he tries to fly through a keyhole, his human legs get stuck.     There were even bishops who did not want to think more deeply than Eutyches, although he had been condemned as a heretic in 448, and they rehabilitated him at a bogus “Robber” council of Ephesus in Turkey. Pope Leo (known to history as “the Great”) appealed from Rome to the venerable lady Pulcheria, empress in the Byzantine half of the Roman Empire, who at the time was regent during the minority of her brother Theodosius II, asking her to summon another council. During the third session of that assembly in Chalcedon, a letter from the Pope was read, defining the true mystery of the Son of God, and the bishops cried out in chorus: “This is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. We all believe, the orthodox believe thus. Those who do not believe thus are excommunicated. Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.”     At Christmas we remember the words Peter heard from the Master, who was once cradled in Bethlehem: “. . . flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven”(Matthew 16:17).  

Theodosius II convoked the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus to settle a controversy between Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria.  The debate began over the term theotokos, the Mother of God, but it soon became clear that nothing less than rightly understanding how Jesus is both God and man was at stake.  Yet, as the questionable politics and personal animosities of the council demonstrate, church history is not about triumph leading to triumph, but God preserving His Church and His truth even with fallible men.  Join us for a discussion of the history and theology of the Council of Ephesus. Hosts: Rev. Willie Grills and Rev. Zelwyn Heide Episode: 56 Find articles and other podcast episodes on our website: wordfitlyspoken.org Follow us on Twitter: @wordfitly Send us a message: podcast@wordfitlyspoken.org Subscribe to the podcast: RSS Feed, iTunes, Spotify, or your favorite podcasting app.

In the year after the Saint's repose both the Emperor Arcadius and his wife Eudoxia, who had been most responsible for St John's exile, died. Their son Theodosius II succeeded to the throne. Soon most of the exiled supporters of St John were restored to their sees. In 434 St Proclus, a disciple of St John Chrysostom, was made Archbishop of Constantinople, and persuaded the Emperor to have St John's relics solemnly translated from Comana to Constantinople. But all efforts to disinter his remains failed, as if his coffin were sealed in the earth. Learning of this, the Emperor wrote a letter to St John asking forgiveness for his father's persecution, and pleading with him to agree to return to the Imperial City for the benefit of the faithful. As soon as this letter was placed over the Saint's tomb, his coffin was removed with no difficulty and conveyed solemnly to Constantinople.   When the cortege reached Constantinople, the Emperor met it and prostrated himself before it, once again begging the Saint's forgiveness for the sins of the State against him. At last, the relics were deposited beneath the altar of the Church of the Holy Apostles, where they worked many miracles during the celebration of the Liturgy. Since then, the relics have been scattered throughout the world, where they never fail to reveal the Saint's loving presence.

De stora guldskatterna från folkvandringstiden som hittats i Sverige ruvar på hemligheter om tribut, rov, krigstjänst och trafficking.Vem har inte drömt om att hitta en stenyxa, en gammal guldring eller kanske rentav en silverskatt från vikingatiden? Tureholmsskatten (12 kilo guld), Timboholmsskatten (sju kilo guld), Vitteneskatten (1,9 kilo guld) och Havorringen (800 gram guld) är några guldskatter som döpts efter platserna de hittats på. Det är inte bara arkeologer som gör sådana upptäckter. För många bönder har detta blivit verklighet när de plöjt sina åkrar, brutit sten och grävt diken.I en nymixad version av sjätte avsnittet av podden Historia Nu samtalar programledaren Kristina Ekero Eriksson med arkeologen Kent Andersson om de mest spännande guldskatterna vi hittat i Sverige. Guldet kan ha varit lön till nordiska soldater som arbetade för Rom, tribut till germanska stammar eller förtjänsten från trafficking av slavar. En menig soldat i romerska armén fick fem solidusmynt per tjänstgöringsår. Ett solidusmynt skulle vara av rent guld och väga 4,54 gram. Det krävs minst 1 500 solidi för att uppnå en vikt på cirka sju kilo. Hunnernas kung Attila, däremot, fick vid mitten av 400-talet en årlig utbetalning från den östromerske kejsaren Theodosius II på över 150 000 solidi, samt en engångssumma på 432 000 solidi.See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Patrick Wyman is a historian and podcaster I hold in great regard and I've invited him on the show today to discuss the history and prominence of the great Walls of Constantinople and the role they've played in the history of the city of Constantinople, now modern day Istanbul. This was a fun conversation where we got to talk not only about the walls themselves but also the history surrounding why they became necessary, which world powers have made attempts to destroy them by laying siege to the city, and what finally happened to the walls through the course of time. When the capital of Rome moved to Constantinople, defensive measures had to be taken. For many years the city of Rome was the jewel of the empire, but as the eastern portion of the empire became more and more powerful and influential, it became clear that the center of commerce and culture had moved east. Constantine built the city of Constantinople, obviously naming it after himself and the capital of the Roman empire was moved. The city became a hotbed of political power and cultural diversity as a major trade route and defensive measures had to be taken to protect the city from outside forces, namely the Huns. Theodosius II lead the effort to build the walls initially and they were the paragon of Roman engineering and defensive capabilities in their day. Patrick Wyman joins me on this episode to discuss the history and importance of the walls of Constantinople. The threat of Attila and his Huns was enough to prompt the building of the walls of Constantinople. Attila the Hun was one of the most dominant warlords in all of human history. His forces laid waste to countless fortified cities all across Asia and Eastern Europe and the threat his armies posed prompted the building of the Walls of Constantinople. The walls were an engineering marvel, essentially making the city impregnable as they made use of the city's location overlooking the water. Patrick Wyman tells how the pressure brought by the Huns motivated Theodosius II to begin the building of the walls and how their strength protected the city for many years, in this episode. The Walls of Constantinople enabled the city to endure long after the Roman empire was fading. The Roman empire had already been divided and many of its fortified cities destroyed by the time the city of Constantinople was in any serious danger from outside forces. Many attempts had been made but none successful. People who lived inside the city may have felt little impact when outside forces attacked simply because the walls made it so secure. But eventually the Muslim forces attacking during the crusades were able to break through and take the city - but their leaders immediately began rebuilding the walls, knowing the strategic advantage they provided. Today the walls are hardly visible and modern tour guides don't think them worth pointing out, but their historical significance can't be understated. How did the walls of Constantinople finally disappear? There is a bit of mystery concerning what eventually happened to cause the mighty walls of Constantinople to diminish to the rubble they are today. There is little historical record as to what happened to the walls, but my guest on this episode, Patrick Wyman believes the city simply outgrew the walls, their usefulness became less important, and they had to be removed. You can hear our entire conversation about these amazing walls and their impact on the region, on this episode of The History Fangirl. Outline of This Episode [1:20] My introduction of the topic and my guest today, Patrick Wyman. [2:21] How Patrick became interested in two major strains in the history of world events. [6:05] The basic history of Theodosius II, the builder of the Walls of Constantinople. [9:04] How the capital of Rome moved from the city of Rome to Constantinople. [12:18] The building of the walls: why was it needed? [19:49] How the walls of Constantinople shaped the history of the city. [26:14] Was their really a slow erosion of the Roman empire? [31:21] The reality of what happened during the Crusades. [35:22] The rebuilding of the walls by the conquering forces. [42:10] After such extensive rebuilding, how did the city lose its walls again? [50:40] Patrick's plug for The Tides of History podcast. Resources & People Mentioned The Fall of Rome Podcast BOOK: The Byzantine Republic www.TravelingMitch.com The Tides of History This Week's Giveaway! The prize for this week is a $20 Amazon gift card. To enter, simply be a newsletter subscriber and leave a comment on this blog post: https://historyfangirl.com/the-walls-of-constantinople/ This Week's Sponsor Get a free audiobook and a 30-day free trial of Audible at audibletrial.com/historyfangirl Book: Lost to the West Connect With Stephanie stephanie@historyfangirl.com https://historyfangirl.com

It all started so well... The walls were built, the persians fought off, the grain shipments sorted, the university founded, the law code created, everything was looking so good. But who's this coming over the hill? He looks scary. And he has a simple, but chilling demand. 'Give me gold, or I will crush you and everything you love - or my name isn't Atilla the Hun'.  Oh dear...

Rebroadcast of the long running radio program, "The Ave Maria Hour", a presentation of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement. www.AtonementFriars.org Daughter of Emperor Arcadius and Empress Aelia Eudoxia. She was born to the imperial family of the Eastern Empire, becoming regent in 414 for her young brother Theodosius II, who became emperor following the death of their father in 408. Given the honorific title Augusta by the Senate, she took a vow of perpetual virginity and gave herself completely to the task of raising her brother to rule the Eastern Empire. Her control was considerable, including running the day to day affairs of the empire, reforming the moral and religious life of the imperial court, and watching over Theodosius' education. In 421, Theodosius wed Athenais, who was baptized, took the name Eudocia, and was declared Augusta by her husband. A protracted political struggle between the two very formidable women started immediately. Pulcheria was exiled for a time, but was recalled after Theodosius leamed of his wife's infidelity. Throughout, Pulcheria was a vocal advocate of orthodoxy against the Eutychian heresy, promoting the appeal of Pope Leo I the Great to the emperor after the decrees of the Latrocinium. In 450, following Theodosius' untimely death from a fall while hunting, Pulcheria was declared Empress, and she married General Marcian after his agreement to share power with her and to respect her virginity.  Pope Leo acknowledged in a letter her instrumental role in the defeat of the heresies of Eutychianism and Nestorianism and for securing the recall of the many orthodox bishops who had been exiled by Theodosius and the heretics after gaining ascendancy in 449. Pulcheria was also responsible for the building of churches, hospitals, and the school of Constantinople, which became one of the chief universities of the Eastem Empire.

Theodosius II was a hands off emperor leaving the running of the empire to officials and his sister.  This was pretty much down to his lack of ability and ambition, but it was also the case that the imperial system made it hard for a monarch to make a mark.

After placating Atilla with yet another indemnity, Theodosius II fell from his horse and died in 450, leaving the Eastern throne vacant.

In the last couple episodes we've set the scene for the Council of Ephesus in 431. Last time we did biographies of the two main players at the Council, Nestorius and Cyril.We ended with a brief review of their different Christologies; that is, how they viewed the dual nature of Christ as God & Man. Let's pick it up now with the events leading to the Council.While Cyril was experienced in the art of ecclesiastical politics and had the support of the, what shall we call them? Let's go with, pugilistic monks of Egypt at his back, Nestorius was more of a Donald Trump figure who eschewed politics in favor of a “My Way or the Highway attitude.  Not long after arriving at his new gig as Patriarch of the Capital church at Constantinople, Nestorius entered the fray of theological controversy by weighing in on THE discussion of the day è How to describe the dual nature of Jesus. As the de-facto standard bearer of Antiochan theology, he pointedly refuted the position of Alexandrian Christology, championed by Cyril. Alexandrians referred to Mary as Theotokos, a term which is literally translated as “Bearer of God” but which had come to mean, “Mother of God.” Nestorius' Christology aimed to keep the two natures of Christ distinct and considered this label for Mary misleading. Mary was the vessel through which the Divine Son of God, became human and the Son of Man. He preferred the title Christotokos. God is eternal, and any attempt to say God was born of Mary seemed to Nestorius to re-open a door to Arianism, since Arians had said there was a time when the Son of God did not exist. In the ensuing discussions, when the Alexandrians rejected his suggestion of Christotokos, Nestorius said  he would consent to the title Theotokos for Mary if they would add the title Anthropotokos. That way Mary would be called the “Mother of God & Man.”In 429, while sitting in his study in Alexandria, word reached Cyril of the discussions his supporters had had with Nestorius on the issue of Mary's title. When he heard the Patriarch of Constantinople had rejected the sole designation Theotokos, he was furious and sent off a heated letter calling for Nestorius to change his views. Nestorius wasn't the kind of person to kowtow to another, especially not the standard bearer of Alexandrian theology. He sent back and equally heated reply. And that elicited an angry retort from Cyril, which called out another barbed response from Nestorius. And so the missiles flew on parchment wings.Both men then appealed to Pope Celestine in Rome. His response was to assemble a hasty a synod in Rome in 430 that took next to no time deciding to support the title Theotokos for Mary, against Nestorius' position. Delighted the West had backed him, Cyril penned a long letter to Nestorius demanding he cease & desist his teaching and recant his position on the natures of Christ. This letter was more of a tome that included a dozen deliberately provocative anathemas; a formal curse by a pope or Church council, meant either to excommunicate someone or denounce a doctrine.As the Patriarch of the Church at Alexandria, that is, it's head bishop, Cyril had no authority to issue these anathemas. An anathema was an official ruling by the Church that said anyone who supported that which had been anathematized was consigned to hell. So when anathemas were issued, they were published far & wide. That's why Cyril penned them. He didn't aim to correct Nestorius. He wanted to destroy him. At least several of the 12 anathemas were gross distortions of Nestorius' position. But Cyril wasn't interested in accuracy. This was political theater. He aimed to carve away from his opponent any modicum of support. The anathemas made it look like Nestorius held t some cray-cray ideas about Jesus. And of course, Cyril didn't just send the letter to Nestorius; he posted it in his blog for all to see. When the Emperor Theodosius heard of it, he hastily called a meeting in June or 431. That became the First Council of Ephesus. It was High Noon between Nestorius and Cyril.From the outset, the entire thing was tilted in Cyril's favor. The council was originally set for Constantinople, but Theodosius' sister, Pulcheria, had it moved Ephesus.Ah, Pulcheria! There was a woman, and one more major personality thrown into the mix that was the train wreck of The Council of Ephesus.Pulcheria was the oldest surviving child of Emperor Arcadius and his wife, Empress Eudoxia. Eudoxia played a major role in the governing of the Eastern Empire alongside her husband. She cultivated her own political & religious party in the Byzantine court that had significant influence in both church and government matters. John Chrysostom and she had a long feud that saw him cast as the champion of the common people against her ostentatious displays of luxury and power. John was alternately banished and recalled during their feud.Pulcheria was every bit her mother's daughter in terms of her savvy use of position at court. When her father & mother passed, leaving her 7 yr old brother Theodosius II too young to rule, she became the de facto Empress as a placeholder till he turned 15. Even after, she continued to have a significant role in steering her brother's policies.Pulcheria eschewed her mother's luxurious fashions in favor of a more sedate wardrobe. No one doubted her devotion to the Lord either. Under her rule the Imperial palace took on the flavor of a monastery; with regular times for prayers and fasting. She resisted her brother's appointment of Nestorius as Patriarch and saw the brewing controversy with Cyril over the nature of Jesus as an opportunity to get rid of him. Being the political bumbler Nestorius was, he made matters worse by impugning the popular virgin Empress Pulcheria's reputation by accusing her of having illicit lovers, removing her image from above the altar and refusing the use of one of her robes as an altar cover.She backed Cyril, and convinced her brother to have the Council moved it to Ephesus. There was a popular shrine to Mary near the city, with many Ephesians devoted to her. Pulcheria knew Ephesus would be far more friendly to Cyril and his pals than Nestorius and his.When the council finally gathered in June of 431 in Ephesus, some 250 bishops were in attendance. The Emperor didn't attend, sending as his representatives, Candidian, head of his imperial guard. Candidian's job was to ensure order and to officially opening & closing the Council under the Emperor's authority.The bishops trickled into Ephesus over several weeks. While waiting for the rest to get there, they did what work they could in the hope of making the work of the Council when it convened more efficient. It quickly became clear the two sides were at utter odds. Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, was of course already there of course, with 52 supporting bishops. Nestorius and his 16 bishops arrived first, escorted by Candidian and his troops. This set the Ephesians on edge, as they assumed Candidian's presence was in support of Nestorius, though Theodosius had instructed him to remain strictly neutral. Knowing he had the support of the locals, Memnon sent out a covert word for people to be on their toes and that they might be needed to act as a deterrent to Candidian's force. Memnon then closed the churches of the City to Nestorius.Cyril then arrived with 50 bishops. There were no Western bishops present. The papal representatives didn't arrive till July. A Palestinian delegation of 16 bishops arrived several days after the Council was set to open.During the discussions that took place before the Council, Nestorius claimed Cyril's theology did damage to a right understanding of Jesus as God. Remember that Cyril's Christology said Jesus deity totally overwhelmed His humanity. Nestorius fired back that if Jesus' divinity effectively negated His humanity, then Cyril would have to worship a God who was only 2 or 3 months old. By this he meant if Mary was Theotokos, mother of God, then she was mother of all His fullness, which is absurd. Cyril's supporters seized on this to paint Nestorius as a heretic. They accused him of being an adoptionist, that is of saying Christ was a man God made divine. That charge resonated with many since it was from Nestorius' hometown of Antioch that Paul of Samosata originally postulated Adoptionism, a heresy which had already been banned.The Ephesians glommed onto the charge of heresy and threatened bishops friendly to Nestorius. Several abandoned him for Cyril's side. When I say these bishops were threatened, I mean with physical violence, bodily harm.When Cyril announced the council's opening, Candidian stopped him, saying the Roman and Antiochean delegations hadn't arrived. Cyril had to comply since the Council's opening couldn't happen with Candidian's authorization from the Emperor.As we've already seen, there really wasn't going to be a Roman delegation; just a handful of representatives form the Pope who were instructed by him not to participate in the discussions. Celestine had already ruled on the issue and wasn't going to have his decision debated. His reps were there just as observers who'd report back to him. The delegation from Antioch was another matter. Antioch's bishop John knew which way the political winds blew and understood that Nestorius was likely to be declared a heretic. He did not want to be part of a Council that did so. So he delayed his arrival.On June 22nd, 2 weeks after the Council was supposed to open, John and his 42 bishops still had not arrived. As president of the meeting, Cyril opened proceedings.Despite 3 summons, Nestorius refused to acknowledge Cyril's authority as president. He also protested the Council's convening without the Antiocheans.  68 other bishops protested the Council's opening & entered the church in protest. Then Candidian arrived and declared the assembly illegal. He asked Cyril to wait 4 more days for the Syrians to arrive. But, seeing that even the protesting bishops were now present, Cyril tricked Candidian into reading the Emperor's decree of convocation. Candidian just thought he was TELLING the assembly what it said, not actually convening the Council. But Cyril latched  onto the reading and made it the basis for the commencement of proceedings.John and the Syrians  bishops finally arrived 5 days later. Candidian informed them the Council had already commenced and had ratified Pope Celestine's declaration of Nestorius as a heretic. Angered at having taken such a long and difficult journey only to be ignored, the Antiocheans held their own Council with Candidian presiding. This council condemned Cyril for espousing heretical views and condemned Bishop Memnon for inciting violence. Both Cyril and Memnon. Were deposed and at first, the Emperor accepted the actions of this alternative Ephesian Council. He later reversed course and endorsed the findings of the Council led by Cyril.A couple weeks passed as the bishops who'd been in attendance at the first Council tried to decide what to do. That's when the Papal reps arrived. So on July 10th, a meeting was held in Memnon's house where the Pope's letter and condemnation of Nestorius as a heretic was re-read and re-approved.They met again the next day to compose a letter to the Emperor rehearsing what they'd done and why. It contained words from the Pope calling on him to enforce the Church's decisions.The bishops took a few days off, then met again to condemn John & the Syrians for holding their own Council.  They were summoned to appear the next day. John didn't only not appear, he put up a placard in the city announcing that Cyril and his supporters were heretics. So the bishops excommunicated John and 34 of his bishops.When the Emperor received the letter from the Council, he backed away from his earlier acceptance of The Syrians counter-council finding. Nestorius was deposed and sent into exile, where he attempted to rally support against Cyril with his own unsuccessful council. Because Nestorius did have supporters among Constantinople's nobility, Cyril was imprisoned for a spell. But he returned to his office as Patriarch of Alexandria, where for the next 2 decades his Christology dominated the theology of the Empire.Sympathizers & supporters were now declared by the canons of the Ephesian Council as heretics. They fled the Empire for the environs of Mesopotamia and Persia, where they established themselves in a burgeoning intellectual center at Nisibis. The Persian church honored Nestorius and eventually separated itself from the West when the Persian Empire clashed with the Eastern Roman Empire.Over the next few centuries, Nestorian missionaries planted churches in Iran, India, Central Asia, and all the way to the Far East of China. So, the decision at Ephesus ended up leading to the expansion of Christianity.As we said at the outset of this series on the Council of Ephesus, the political squabbling of the Church at this point is simply atrocious. When denominations differ on theological issues, they mustn't look to Ephesus as an example of how to handle them. If anything, they ought to be warned BY them.Fortunately, church leaders realized Ephesus was a bad deal and made moves a couple decades later to set things right at Chalcedon.So, was Nestorius a heretic? After all the shenanigans surrounding the Council, was that verdict the correct one?While there are aspects of later Nestorianism that are aberrant, the theology espoused by Nestorius himself was sound. He may not have stated it as well as others later did, but he in effect believed the same thing. In fact, later, from exile, when he read the formulae of other's orthodox Christology, he said that's what he'd always believed.Cyril's Christology, on the other hand ended up leading to the error of monophysitism; the belief that in the Incarnation Jesus single nature as God utterly overwhelmed His humanity, sending it into a kind of spiritual coma.

In 431, the Council of Ephesus dismissed Nestorius' explanation of the dual nature of Christ in favor of Cyril's. But that Council was swayed more by circumstance and politics than by sound theology. While Nestorius' Christology was mis-represented by his critics to be proposing, not just two natures to Jesus, but two persons, Cyril's Christology put such heavy emphasis on Jesus' deity, his Christology leaned toward monophysitism; that is, casting Jesus as having a single nature.Now, to be clear, Cyril did not advocate monophysitism; that is, that Jesus had only one nature. He stayed orthodox, technically, by admitting Jesus was also human. But he said Jesus' deity overwhelmed His humanity so that his humanity was like a drop of ink in the ocean of His deity.The Council of Ephesus didn't really provide a solid understanding on the nature of Christ. This was something the Church had wrestled with for 400 yrs. Church historian Justo Gonzalez ways, “Both sides were agreed the divine was immutable and eternal. The question then was, how can the immutable, eternal God be joined to a mutable, historical man?”With Nestorius excommunicated & exiled, and Cyril's Christology creating confusion, the scene was ripe for the emergence of even more confusion.That came with the work of Eutyches, head of a monastery on the border of Constantinople. Though under Bishop Nestorius' oversight, Eutyches disagreed sharply with him. He developed a view of the natures of Jesus that seemed a ready explanation that would bring both sides together. Eutyches emphasize the union of the two natures of Christ; a union so thorough it fused them into a new, third nature that was a hybrid of human & divine. This then is True Monophysitism, with a capital “M.” Eutyches agreed with Cyril Christ was only one person, but unlike Cyril, he said there was also only one nature.The Fourth Ecumenical Church Council at Chalcedon in 451 was called to deal with the Eutychian challenge.But before we get to that Council, we need to talk a bit about an unfortunate event that happened a couple years before in 449 back in Ephesus, scene of the last Church Council in 431.The 70-year-old Eutyches lead a monastery of some 300 monks just outside the walls of Constantinople for 30 years. When he began teaching that the two natures of Jesus as God & man were fused into a single new third nature, Constantinople's Patriarch Flavian convened a council deposing Eutyches for heresy and excommunicated both him and those monks who supported him. Joining Flavian in this censure was Domnus, patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria's age-old theological and political nemesis.You can see where this is going, can't you?Sure enough, Dioscoros, Patriarch of Alexandria cast all this as an attempt on the part of the two bishops as an attempt top restore Nestorianism. So Dioscoros threw in his enthusiastic support of Eutyches and convinced Emperor Theodosius II to call a new council at Ephesus in 449 to deal with the matter. Though Pope Leo I's predecessors had tended to side with Alexandria on previous matters, Pope Leo wrote to Flavian reinforcing the dual-nature view in a weighty theological work now known as The Tome of Leo. The pope also sent legates to the council, one of which would later become pope himself.The Emperor authorized the Council to deal with the issue of whether or not Patriarch Flavian had justly deposed & excommunicated Eutyches for heresy. But, Flavian and 6 assisting bishops were not allowed to participate at the Council in Ephesus. Further stacking the Council against Flavian was that the Emperor made Flavian's opponent Dioscorus president of the council. The papal legate was expelled from the proceedings at some point. It was clear that of the 198 bishops in attendance, most leaned toward Dioscoros.In the first session, after a message from Theodosius II was read laying down the Council's objectives, the remaining papal legates moved to read Pope Leo's letter to Flavian as part of the official proceedings. But Dioscorus refused them, stating matters of dogma were not a matter for inquiry, since they'd already been resolved at the previous Council of Ephesus in 431. The issue for them to decide was whether Flavian had acted properly in deposing and excommunicating Eutyches.Eutyches then was introduced. He declared he held to the Nicene Creed. He claimed to have been condemned by Flavian on a technicality & misunderstanding and asked the council to exonerate and reinstate him. The bishop that was supposed to present the evidence against Eutyches wasn't allowed to speak. At this point the bulk of the bishops agreed that the record of the council condemning Eutyches ought to be read so they could get a better understanding of what evidence they'd used. When the record was read, some claimed it was inaccurate. Flavian's action was cast as a personal vendetta against an innocent man. When Flavian attempted to speak, he was shouted down. But more than that. One report has Dioscoros and his supporters physically attacking him. The account is confused, so we're not sure if it was bishops who went to brawling, some of the Imperial troops standing guard over the proceedings, or both. The upshot is, blows were given Flavian's party. When the vote finally came in, he was deposed & excommunicated and died of his wounds a few days into his exile.Eutyches & his brother monks were reinstated and the Council went on to deposed several more bishops who'd opposed Dioscoros. A deacon named Anatolius who was loyal to the Alexandrian bishop was now placed in charge of the Church of Constantinople.When Pope Leo received a report of this council from his legates he condemned it, calling it the Latrocinium, a Robber Council and refused to recognize Anatolius as Bishop of Constantinople. Emperor Theodosius ignored Leo's refusal, but all that changed when not long after he was killed in an accident and his sister Pulcheria came back to the Eastern throne. She married the general Marcian & together they cleared the teachings of Dioscoros and Eutyches from the Church. Patriarch Anatolius knew who buttered his bread, so he also quickly also condemned Eutyches' monophysitism. Pulcheria & Marcian knew that the Second Council at Ephesus was a bad deal and that another, genuine ecumenical council was called for to deal with the issue of Christ's nature once & for all. It was called in the city of Chalcedon in 451, directly across from Constantinople.The council began on the 8th of Oct, with some 500 bishops, the largest council so far. Pope Leo sent a group of legates along with his Tome which had been ignored a couple years before.The Council opened by reading over the Nicaean Creed, along with the letter from Cyril to Nestorius and the Tome of Leo. The bishops agreed all this was enough to resolve the issue before them; that is, articulating an orthodox position on the dual nature of Christ in one person. Emperor Marcian, most likely at the insistence of Pulcheria, directed the Council to develop a new creed that would not only unite the Antiochenes with their emphasis on Jesus' humanity with the Alexandrians emphasizing His deity, but that would adequately express a Christology both East & West could agree on. A committee was appointed to develop a draft for discussion.The first draft pleased most of the bishops; all except for the papal representatives. They felt the language was too close to Eutychian Monophysitism. They moved to replace the draft's wording with that of Leo's Tome, “two natures are united without change, and without division, and without confusion in Christ.” This change pleased all and was recognized as a better terminology than originally proposed.The Council made clear what they'd produced wasn't really a new creed, creed but an interpretation and elaboration of the work of the previous the councils and their work in refining the Nicaean Creed. It reads . . .Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance [and here they use the technical Greek word homoousios] with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before all ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer [here they use the disputer phrase Theotokos]; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence [hypostasis], not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.The Council maintained a clear distinction between the concept of a person and a nature. Jesus was said to have a both divine and human nature while still being only one person; he had everything he needed to be divine and everything he needed to be human. The Second Person of the Trinity didn't just assume human person (the error of adoptionism); He  took on a human nature. The Council also made an important technical distinction. The human nature of Christ did not exist as a person without the divine person of the Logos to assume it. This is called the anhypostasia/enhypostasia distinction, and may be simplified to this. Because of the power intrinsic to Himself as God, The Son could become man. But because of the limitations to himself as a mere man, Jesus could never become God. His divinity precedes His humanity. But because of the Incarnation, He remains human now in His glorified state.We owe much in the way we speak of Jesus Christ today to The Council of Chalcedon. And as clear as its Christology is, the more you ponder the dual nature of Christ ion His one Person, the more the mystery of the Incarnation opens before you. We realize that the Chalcedonian Creed doesn't so much explain or describe the nature of Chris as it does provide a set of rules for HOW we talk about Him. It's more like the rules of grammar than literature. It sets boundaries and borders to work within, but leaves us to fill out what lies between them.As we will see, Chalcedon didn't answer all the questions that needed to be settled. A large part of the Eastern church concluded the Chalcedonian Dreed was too Nestorian and betrayed the simple idea of a single person Cyril fought for at Ephesus. Then, in Western churches, the question arose of how many wills Christ had, one or two. But all that was addressed with less drama because of the work of because of Chalcedon.In the 16th C, the Reformers accepted Chalcedon as authoritative; it's language incorporated in their own creeds and formulations. The in the 20th C,  when liberalism challenged Christ's Christ, Fundamentalists like BB Warfield appealed to Chalcedon as a faithful expression of what the Scripture says about the Son of God.While all that was the main body of work done at the Council of Chalcedon, as with the other Councils, a number of other decisions were rendered to tighten up church business. These rulings are called canons. There are 30 of them from Chalcedon. For the most part their technical, house-keeping kind of things having to do with the behavior of the clergy. But Canon 28 of Chalcedon was to have far-reaching and monumental import. It reads . . .The bishop of New Rome shall enjoy the same honor as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire. For this reason the metropolitans of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople.The papal legates weren't present when this Canon was passed and protested afterward. It was of course rejected by Pope Leo and became a major point of contention in later discussions.

The title of this episode is, “Can't We All Just Get Along?”In our last episode, we began our look at how the Church of the 4th & 5th Cs attempted to describe the Incarnation. Once the Council of Nicaea affirmed Jesus' deity, along with His humanity, Church leaders were left with the task of finding just the right words to describe WHO Jesus was. If He was both God & Man as The Nicaean Creed said, how did these two natures relate to one another?We looked at how the churches at Alexandria & Antioch differed in their approaches to understanding & teaching the Bible. Though Alexandria was recognized as a center of scholarship, the church at Antioch kept producing church leaders who were drafted to fill the role of lead bishop at Constantinople, the political center of the Eastern Empire. While Rome was the undisputed lead church in the West, Alexandria, Antioch & Constantinople vied with each other over who would take the lead in the East. But the real contest was between Alexandria in Egypt & Antioch in Syria.The contest between the two cities & their churches became clear during the time of John Chrysostom from Antioch & Theophilus, lead bishop at Alexandria. Because of John's reputation as a premier preacher, he was drafted to become Bishop at Constantinople. But John's criticisms of the decadence of the wealthy, along with his refusal to tone down his chastisement of the Empress, caused him to fall out of favor. I guess you can be a great preacher, just so long as you don't turn your skill against people in power. Theophilus was jealous of Chrysostom's promotion from Antioch to the capital and used the political disfavor growing against him to call a synod at which John was disposed from office as Patriarch of Constantinople.That was like Round 1 of the sparring match between Alexandria and Antioch. Round 2 and the deciding round came next in the contest between 2 men; Cyril & Nestorius.Cyril was Theophilus' nephew & attended his uncle at the Synod of the Oak at which Chrysostom was condemned. Cyril learned his lessons well and applied them with even greater ferocity in taking down his opponent, Nestorius.Before we move on with these 2, I need to back-track some & bore the bejeebers out of you for a bit.Warning: Long, hard to pronounce, utterly forgettable word Alert.Remember è The big theological issue at the forefront of everyone's mind during this time was how to understand Jesus.Okay, we got it: àThe Nicaean Creed's been accepted as basic Christian doctrine.The Cappadocian Fathers have given us the right formula for understanding the Trinity.There's 1 God in 3 persons; Father, Son & Holy Spirit.Now, on to the next thing: Jesus is God and Man. How does that work? Is He 2 persons or 1? Does He have 1 nature or 2? And if 2, how do those natures relate to one another?A couple ideas were floated to resolve the issue but came up short; Apollinarianism and Eutychianism.Apollinaris of Laodicea lived in the 4th C.  A defender of the Nicene Creed, he said in Jesus the divine Logos replaced His human soul. Jesus had a human body in which dwelled a divine spirit. Our longtime friend Athanasius led the synod of Alexandria in 362 to condemn this view but didn't specifically name Apollinaris. 20 Yrs later, the Council of Constantinople did just that. Gregory of Nazianzus supplied the decisive argument against Apollinarianism saying, “What was not assumed was not healed” meaning, for the entire of body, soul, and spirit of a person to be saved, Jesus Christ must have taken on a complete human nature.Eutyches was a, how to describe him; elderly-elder, a senior leader, an aged-monk in Constantinople who advocated one nature for Jesus. Eutychianism said that while in the Incarnation Jesus was both God & man, His divine nature totally overwhelmed his human nature, like a drop of vinegar is lost in the sea.Those who maintained the dual-nature of Jesus as wholly God and wholly Man are called dyophysites.  Those advocating a single-nature are called Monophysites.What happened between Cyril & Nestorius is this . . .Nestorius was an elder and head of a monastery in Antioch when the emperor Theodosius II chose him to be Bishop of Constantinople in 428.Now, what I'm about to say some will find hard to swallow, but while Nestorius's name became associated with one of the major heresies to split the church, the error he's accused of he most likely wasn't guilty of. What Nestorius was guilty of was being a jerk. His story is typical for several of the men who were picked to lead the church at Constantinople during the 4th through 7th Cs; effective preachers but lousy administrators & seriously lacking in people skills. Look, if you're going to be pegged to lead the Church at the Political center of the Empire, you better be a savvy political operator, as well as a man of moral & ethical excellence. A heavy dose of tact ought to have been a pre-requisite. But guys kept getting selected who came to the Capital on a campaign to clean house. And many of them seem to have thought subtlety was the devil's tool.As soon as Nestorius arrived in Constantinople, he started a harsh campaign against heretics, meaning anyone with whom he disagreed. It wouldn't take long before his enemies accused him of the very thing he accused others of. But in their case, their accusations were born of jealousy.Where they deiced to take offense was when Nestorius balked at the use of the word Theotokos. The word means God-bearer, and was used by the church at Alexandria for the mother of Jesus. While the Alexandrians said they rejected Apollinarianism, they, in fact, emphasized the divine nature of Jesus, saying it overwhelmed His human nature. The Alexandrian bishop, Cyril, was once again jealous of the Antiochan Nestorius' selection as bishop for the Capital. As his uncle Theophilus had taken advantage of Chrysostom's disfavor to get him deposed, Cyril laid plans for removing the tactless & increasingly unpopular Nestorius. The battle over the word Theotokos became the flashpoint of controversy, the crack Cyril needed to pry Nestorius from his position.To supporters of the Alexandrian theology, Theotokos seemed entirely appropriate for Mary. They said she DID bear God when Jesus took flesh in her womb. And to deny it was to deny the deity of Christ!Nestorius and his many supporters were concerned the title “Theotokos” made Mary a goddess. Nestorius maintained that Mary was the mother of the man Who was united with the divine Logos, and nothing should be said that might imply she was the “Mother à of God.” Nestorius preferred the title Christokos; Mary was the Christ-bearer. But he lacked a vocabulary and the theological sophistication to relate the divine and human natures of Jesus in a convincing way.Cyril, on the other hand, argued convincingly for his position from the Scriptures. In 429, Cyril defended the term Theotokos. His key text was John 1: 14, “The Word became flesh.” I'd love to launch into a detailed description of the nuanced debate between Cyril and Nestorius over the nature of Christ but it would leave most, including myself, no more clued in than we are now.Suffice it to say, Nestorius maintained the dual-nature-in-the-one-person of Christ while Cyril stuck to the traditional Alexandrian line and said while Jesus was technically 2 natures, human & divine, the divine overwhelmed the human so that He effectively operated as God in a physical body.Where this came down to a heated debate was over the question of whether or not Jesus really suffered in His passion. Nestorius said that the MAN Jesus suffered but not His divine nature, while Cyril said the divine nature did indeed suffer.When the Roman Bishop Celestine learned of the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius, he selected a churchman named John Cassian to respond to Nestorius. He did so in his work titled On the Incarnation in 430. Cassian sided with Cyril but wanted to bring Nestorius back into harmony. Setting aside Cassian's hope to bring Nestorius into his conception of orthodoxy, Celestine entered a union with Cyril against Nestorius and the church at Antioch he'd come from. A synod at Rome in 430 condemned Nestorius, and Celestine asked Cyril to conduct proceedings against him.Cyril condemned Nestorius at a Synod in Alexandria and sent him a notice with a cover letter listing 12 anathemas against Nestorius and anyone else who disagreed with the Alexandrian position. For example à “If anyone does not confess Emmanuel to be very God, and does not acknowledge the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos, for she brought forth after the flesh the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.”Receiving the letter from Cyril, Nestorius humbly resigned and left for a quiet retirement at Leisure Village in Illyrium. à Uh, not quite. True to form, Nestorius ignored the Synod's verdict.Emperor Theodosius II called a general council to meet at Ephesus in 431. This Council is sometimes called the Robber's Synod because it turned into a bloody romp by Cyril's supporters. As the bishops gathered in Ephesus, it quickly became evident the Council was far more concerned with politics than theology. This wasn't going to be a sedate debate over texts, words & grammar. It was going to be a physical contest. Let's settle doctrinal disputes with clubs instead of books.Cyril and his posse of club-wielding Egyptian monks, and I use the word posse purposefully, had the support of the Ephesian bishop, Memnon, along with the majority of the bishops from Asia. The council began on June 22, 431, with 153 bishops present. 40 more later gave their assent to the findings. Cyril presided. Nestorius was ordered to attend but knew it was a rigged affair and refused to show. He was deposed and excommunicated. Ephesus rejoiced.On June 26, John, bishop of Antioch, along with the Syrian bishops, all of whom had been delayed, finally arrived. John held a rival council consisting of 43 bishops and the Emperor's representative. They declared Cyril & Memnon deposed. Further sessions of rival councils added to the number of excommunications.A report reached Theodosius II, and representatives of both sides pled their case. Theodosius's first instinct was to confirm the depositions of Cyril, Memnon, & Nestorius. Be done with the lot of them. But a lavish gift from Cyril persuaded the Emperor to dissolve the Council and send Nestorius into exile. A new bishop for Constantinople was consecrated. Cyril returned in triumph to Alexandria.From a historical perspective, it's what happened AFTER the Council of Ephesus that was far more important. John of Antioch sent a representative to Alexandria with a compromise creed. This asserted the duality of natures, in contrast to Cyril's formulation, but accepted the Theotokos, in contrast to Nestorius. This compromise anticipated decisions to be reached at the next general church Council at Chalcedon.Cyril agreed to the creed and a reunion of the churches took place in 433. Since then, historians have asked if Cyril was being a statesman in agreeing to the compromise or did he just cynically accept it because he'd achieved his real purpose; getting rid of Nestorius. Either way, the real loser was Nestorius. Theodosius had his books burned, and many who agreed with Nestorius's theology dropped their support.Those who represented his theological emphases continued to carry on their work in eastern Syria, becoming what History calls the Church of the East, a movement of the Gospel we'll soon see that reached all the way to the Pacific Ocean.While in exile, Nestorius wrote a book that set forth the story of his life and defended his position. Modern reviews of Nestorius find him to be more of a schismatic in temperament than a heretic. He denied the heresy of which he was accused, that the human Jesus and the divine Christ were 2 different persons.20 yrs after the Council of Ephesus, which many regarded as a grave mistake, another was called at Chalcedon. Nestorius' teaching was declared heretical and he was officially deposed. Though already in exile, he was now banished by an act of the Church rather than Emperor. In one of those odd facts of history, though what Nestorius taught about Christ was declaimed, it turned out to be the position adopted by the Creed that came out of the Council of Chalcedon. When word reached Nestorius in exile of the Council's finding he said they'd only ratified what he'd always believed & taught.There's much to learn from this story of conflict and resolution.First, many of the doctrines we take for granted as being part and parcel of the orthodox Christian faith, came about through great struggle and debate of some of the most brilliant minds history's known. Sometimes, those ideas were popular and ruled because they were expedient. But mere politics can't sustain a false idea. There are always faithful men and women who love truth because it's true, not because it will gain them power, influence or advantage. They may suffer at the hands of the corrupt for a season, but they always prevail in the end.We ought to be thankful, not only to God for giving us the truth in His Word and the Spirit to understand it, but also to the people who at great cost were willing to hazard themselves to make sure Truth prevailed over error.Second, Too often, people look back on the “Early Church” and assume it was a wonderful time of sweet harmony. Life was simple, everyone agreed and no one ever argued. Hardly!Good grief. Have they read the Bible? The disciples were forever arguing over who was greatest. Paul & Barnabas had a falling out over John Mark. Paul had to get in Peter's face when he played the hypocrite.Yes, for sure, in Acts we read about a brief period of time when the love of the fellowship was so outstanding it shook the people of Jerusalem to the core and resulted in many coming to faith. But that was only a brief moment that soon passed.God wants His people to be in unity. True unity, under the truth of the Gospel, is an incredibly powerful proof of our Faith. But the idea that the Early Church was a Golden Age of Unity is a fiction. Philip Jenkins' book on the battle over the Christology of the 4th & 5th Cs. is titled Jesus Wars.The Church as a whole would be better served today in its pursuit of unity if each local congregation focused its primary efforts on loving and serving one another through the power of the Spirit. It's inevitable if they excelled at that, they'd begin looking at all churches and believers in the same way, and unity would be real rather than a program with a start & end date or a campaign based on personalities and hype.Hey - come to think of it, that's what DID bring about that short glorious moment of blissful harmony in Jerusalem among the followers of Jesus – they loved and served one another in the power of the Spirit.