Truth, Omission, and Fiction in the Acts of Chalcedon

Summary

Truth

Who in the early church published conciliar acts and why? Without attempting a generalization, I shall simply say that the Acts of Chalcedon were manifestly produced and published by the imperial government, shortly after the council. What was the purpose of publishing the minutes, and not just the decrees? The minutes inevitably showed up disagreements: how was this of any advantage to the winning side?

It is to be noted that conciliar decisions had to be unanimous. All the bishops at Chalcedon, save the Egyptians (allowed to drop out after their patriarch's deposition), had to sign the Definition of Faith. Anti-Chalcedonian sources inform us of bishops who only signed the Definition under compulsion or whose signatures had to be provided by colleagues. Regularly throughout the council when a formal decision had to be reached, a period of open discussion (where the minutes are more likely to be selective than complete) would be closed by the senior bishop present delivering his judgement; this would be followed by similar pronouncements by other bishops, delivered in rough order of seniority. The total number of individual verdicts varied – 192 (almost all the bishops present) in the condemnation of Dioscorus in Session III, 161 in the approval of Leo's Tome in Session IV, a mere 18 in the reinstatement of Bishop Ibas of Edessa in Session X.