Late Antique POD: different Counsel of Chalcedon.

In 451, the leaders of various Christian churches met at Chalcedon to hammer out a solution to the monophisite controversy. According to the traditional understanding common in church history--which I will accept as basically true for the purposes of this discussion--the so-called Tome of Leo was a decisive event at the counsel. Pope Leo laid down the line the counsel eventually took: one Christ, two natures.

However, it is generally accepted that Eastern emperors preferred a more compromising position. After all, Leo wasn't dealing with monophisitism on any large scale at all in the west and--it has been argued--didn't deal adequately with the complexity of the Greek.

So, let's assume Pope Leo's messengers never make it to the counsel, and the statement issued at Chalcedon is more akin to the henoticon promulgated by Emperor Xeno forty years document. This document basically treated the dispute over one-nature verses two-nature Christology as though it never happened. Of course, Leo is a bit distracted at the time--the Huns are just about on his doorstep--so it's conceivable he might not be able to respond before this counsel becomes official throughout the ERE.

"Okay, but what does this mean outside the realm of complex trinitarian Christian theology nobody today can even understand?" My simple answer is that it could mean a more stable and powerful Eastern Roman Empire. Given that Syria and Egypt were the two regions most alienated by the hard-line Chalcedonianism of later Emperors, a more modest position which allows for one-nature and two-nature christology to co-exist within one church might actually keep the Empire somewhat more united. There will be hard-case monasteries on both sides, but they can probably be delt with.

On the other hand, it could mean a much earlier breech with Rome. I'm invisioning a worse version of the schism briefly inaugurated after the Henoticon was put in place. If this happens earlier--and isn't reversed--the consequences could be huge for the political development of both the ERE and Western Europe.

Thoughts? Does anyone want to see a TL, or to question the assumptions I've made so far?
 
Things in Italy would certain be stirred up if there is an earlier split. If the antagonism starts almost immediately, Marcian may delay attacking the Huns in Pannonia, forestalling Attila's peace with the west and allowing him to reach Rome.
 
In my understanding, religious conflicts within the ERE, though certainly unhelpful, weren't a very important factor among its weaknesses. Syrian and Egyptian separatism on religious grounds was generally minor... it was much more significant in Armenia, but I see it as a consequence, not a cause, of Armenian cultural and political self-awareness as non-Romans.
If anything, theological opposition to Chalcedon was a way to express discontent with the policies of the Empire, esp. fiscal stuff. Lacking this channel, disgruntled Syrians might turn Nestorian instead.
Overall, I don't see the lack of an Orthodox/Monophysite split as a great factor of strength for Byzance. It would probably help, yes, but not a great deal. As for the West, I guess they'll tow the line for time being, though an earlier East/West schism is in the cards.
An interesting point is that with such a PD, Islam is likely butterflied away or changed beyond recognition.
 
Thoughts? Does anyone want to see a TL, or to question the assumptions I've made so far?

The idea of a different Council of Chalcedon has always interested me, but in my opinion its roots are far deeper than what the prevailing Western view supposes. While there is no doubt that the Tome of Leo was influential in the Council's ruling, there has been some recent scholarship that suggests that a lot of what motivated the Council's decision didn't come from the West at all, but was in fact the direct result of the later work of St. Cyril of Alexandria wherein he tried to compromise with the Antiochene bishops he had alienated after Ephesus. It makes sense if you think about it. Rome was rather removed from the theological disputes of the the East, and the language of the Council was still firmly Eastern in its dogmatic definitions. So no legates at Chalcedon doesn't necessarily mean no ruling against Miaphysitism and Dioscorus of Alexandria.

The imperial court also had a vested interest in keeping Alexandria from having too much influence, and if the miaphysites win out then that would just mean Alexandria would retain its place as the intellectual center of the Christian East. So the empire wouldn't have had the interest in promoting a Henotikon just yet because it might be hard to get Canon 27 in the final settlement (the one which elevates Constantinople above the other Eastern sees, and which Rome never recognized).

Finally, the issue with the Henotikon is that it papered over the very dispute it was issued to resolve, which makes me think a similar, ATL document would not be a solid basis for any of the Conciliar theology of the 5th century.

However, since the Council of Chalcedon did somewhat recognize Rome's primacy, St. Leo was willing to ignore the canon which made Constantinople sound like his equal. If his legates aren't around to hear the bishops say "It is Peter who has spoken through Leo!", then it's entirely possible that he may reject the entire Council if something like Canon 27 gets passed. So an earlier schism with Rome is certainly a possibility, but it may well end like many of the other schisms that took place between then and the big one in 1054.
 
Top