So, the conclusions of the council of Chalcedon were correct but at the same time, perhaps quite fallible because there was no guarantee that the members of said council would come to the right conclusion simply by virtue of it being a council?
Well, personally I think the term “infallible” often creates more problems than it solves. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it, but we should recognize that it’s not a simple concept and that it needs to be defined very carefully in a specific context.
Everyone agrees that there was no guarantee that Chalcedon would be right just because it was something called “a council.” That’s not even a live option. We all know that there have been heretical councils–Chalcedonian Christians, for instance, believe Ephesus 449 to have been such a council (and “Oriental Orthodox” believe Chalcedon to have been such a council!).
The question is whether there is some objective, procedural way to tell in advance which councils are going to turn out to be “true” ones. I think that the claim doesn’t hold up. The only such criterion anyone can point to, really, is papal approval, and even that one is pretty shaky in my opinion, given that the pope never seems to have taken any notice of Constantinople 381 until much, much later, and that a later pope fiercely opposed Constantinople 553 until coerced by the emperor into recognizing it reluctantly.
I am fine with accepting eventual/longterm papal approval as one necessary sign that a Council has been received by the Church. I think that fits the historical evidence. But the idea that ancient Christians sat around wondering if a council was legitimate until the Pope said it was, and then all saluted and went about their business knowing the Council was infallible, certainly does not.
Do you believe that ecumenical council of Chalcedon was guided by the spirit of truth in some way, or do you trust that they were correct (but possible fallible) - based on human discernment alone?
I believe that it was guided by the spirit of truth, absolutely. Many Protestants would say that. However, they would say that we know it to be guided by the Holy Spirit insofar as we can verify that its teachings were in accordance with Scripture, whereas I believe that longterm reception by a Christian community continuing to bring forth the fruit of holiness and standing in continuity with the apostolic community (communion with Rome certainly helps in this regard, at the very least) is in itself a sufficient criterion which should give us confidence that such a community has not wholly perverted the teaching of Scripture!
Edwin
