"Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out–the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome — we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him." (Council of Chalcedon, Canon 28)
This canon has been hotly debated in discussions on the papacy between the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants.
In this article, I want to give some material from church historians and scholars which show that this canon ultimately does damage to the Vatican I conception of the papacy.
"and finally by the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, custom was made law, and the Patriarch of Constantinople found himself possessed of greater powers than any of his brethren—the Roman See scarcely at that time excepted" (John Mason Neale, A History of the Holy Eastern Church, Vol 1, pg. 28, source)
"The opposition to a canon of the very Council which he set on a level with Nicaea indicates the crux of Leo’s thought on tradition, the dimensions of his conservatism and his revisionism. The decree to which he objected conformed entirely with his views on appropriate change in the administrative order of the Church. Since it was framed by an ecumenical council that had been summoned by imperial edict and papal assent, it expressed the consensus of the Fathers, the ratification of the universal Church, as much as did the approval of Leo’s Tome. The criteria of episcopal agreement, conciliar approval, and universality urged its legitimacy. Against it, Leo advanced only the sixth canon of Nicaea in a sense which the East had steadfastly repudiated for at least a century, and the warning that nothing could be firm apart from the rock of St. Peter "(Karl Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church [Princeton: Princeton University 1969], p. 95)
"Rome, famously, refused to accept the canons of Constantinople I and Chalcedon that ranked Constantinople after her in dignity. This was partly because it was an innovation that threatened her sense of her own supremacy, but more deeply it was because of the grounds implied for her own primacy, namely being the imperial city, for Rome had never justified any of its claims in terms of its civil pre-eminence, rather it had argued that its pre-eminence rested on its status as an unequivocally apostolic see, claiming not only Peter, who had founded the see, but also Paul, who had died there, as Peter had, a martyr's death." (Andrew Louth, Greek East and Latin West - The Church 681-1071, pg. 76)
"Both sides agreed that Constantinople frequently exercised the right to consecrate metropolitan bishops in the eastern provinces....When Pope Leo I received notification of the work of the council, he understood that Canon 28 posed a threat to the standing of his see. Letters from the authorities in the east, both imperial and patriarchal, urged him to sign the document, but he refused. When he responded to the emperor, it was to stress that the apostolic foundation of Rome set it apart from all others." (Richard Price and Mary Whitby, Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400-700, pg. 152)
"There is no doubt that the Eastern bishops wanted the pope's approval for canon 28, especially 'given the flattering terms in which they sought it', but unlike Leo himself they did not think they needed it for validity." (A. Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate, pg. 178)
"The imperial commissioners requested both parties to bring forward the ecclesiastical laws upon which they based their position. The legate Paschasinus then read from his copy of the 6th Nicene canon in connection with the 7th, in a form which departs from the genuine Greek text...in one point in a very remarkable manner (since it ascribes the primacy to the bishop of Rome)." (Charles Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, Vol. 3, pg. 425, source)
"The famous canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon was undoubtedly a restatement and further development of the third canon of Constantinople. But canon 28, besides again affirming the place of honor to Constantinople after Rome, secured to Constantinople also the right to consecrate the exarchs (chief bishops) of the diocesan capitals..." (Deno John Geanakoplos, Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologan) and Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches, pg. 170)
"By Canon 28 not only were the decisions in favor of Constantinople as New Rome ratified, but its patriarchal jurisdiction extended into Thrace on the one hand, and Asia and Pontus in Asia Minor on the other. The legates were not deceived by the primacy of honor accorded to Rome. They protested loud and long. The Council, however, had decided, and the decision of the Council was superior to the wishes even of the Bishop of Rome." (W.H.C. Frend, The Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965), p. 232)
"Rome had not accepted Canon 3 of Constantinople 381, and after consideration Leo now annulled Canon 28 of Chalcedon (CCC 365-7): Anatolius was ambitious, and the canon contrary to the decisions of Nicaea (he probably meant the canons of Sardica, which were mistaken for Nicene). It was wrong to relegate the apostolic (Petrine) sees of Antioch and Alexandria to lower status than Constantinople. But the crucial point is the old one: Canon 28 had flagrantly based the claim of Constantinople on its imperial status, ‘that the city which was honoured with the sovereignty and senate, and which enjoyed equal privileges with the elder royal Rome, should also be magnified like her in ecclesiastical matters’. The implication that the papacy derived its standing from the imperial character of its city, and not from Christ’s appointment of Peter, was not tolerable. " (Stuart George Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church, pgs. 231-232)
No comments:
Post a Comment