The Convening of the Council
The actual gathering of the bishops from all parts of the empire for the purpose of assembling the council was done at the command and authority of the emperor Marcian. This is in spite of the fact that Leo wrote to him asking that the synod be deposed for a later time, and that it take place in Italy rather than Nicaea (where the Fourth Council was originally assembled before relocating to Chalcedon). The official summons to the bishops of the east was sent out at Marcian's command in May of 451. From the get-go, it was clear that this council would be under tight imperial control, so as to prevent a repeating of Ephesus II. Many bishops themselves were hesitant to travel to the Synod unless it would be attended by the emperor himself (Price, 1:39). The emperor did not give into Leo's wishes, and proceeded to convene the council at another time and place than what Leo had advised. In their synodal letter to Leo, the bishops at Chalcedon explicitly say whose authority it was that sanctioned the assembling of the council itself: "The great and holy and universal Synod, which by the grace of God and the sanction of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors has been gathered together in the metropolis of Chalcedon in the province of Bithynia, to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo." (Letter 98)
Hence Aeneus Slyvius Piccolomini (a.k.a. Pope Pius II!) said the following: "At ego dum ueteres lego historias, dum Actus perspicio Apostolorum, hunc equidem usum non inuenio ut soli papae concilia congregauerint..per quod autoritas haec congregandi concilia solis Romanis pontificibus pateat. Nec post, tempore magni Constantini et aliorum Augustorum, ad congreganda concilia quaesitus est magnopere Romani assensus papae''; --- "Yet as I read the old accounts and scan Acts of the Apostles, I do not find this practice of the popes alone summoning councils....On running through all of them in this way nothing would be found in the early Church conferring this right to summon councils on the Roman pontiffs alone. Later, in the time of Constantine the Great and other emperors, the agreement of the Roman pope was not particularly sought for the summoning of councils, and therefore the Synod of Chalcedon speaks thus about itself: “The holy and great universal Synod, which has been summoned in accordance with the grace of God and the sanction of the most pious and Christian emperors Valentinian and Marcian at Chalcedon, metropolis of the province of Bithynia’.’ The Synod makes no mention of the Roman pontiff, though it was held with his agreement." (Pope Pius II, De gestis concilii basiliensis commentariorum libri II, ed. & trans. Denys Hay & W.K. Smith [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967], book I [pgs. 82-83])
All of this is, as a simple matter of fact, contrary to Roman Catholic ecclesiastical law. "It is for the Roman Pontiff alone to convoke an ecumenical council, preside over it personally or through others, transfer, suspend, or dissolve a council, and to approve its decrees. It is for the Roman Pontiff to determine the matters to be treated in a council and establish the order to be observed in a council. To the questions proposed by the Roman Pontiff, the council fathers can add others which are to be approved by the Roman Pontiff." (Code of Canon Law, Book II, part II, section 1, canon 338, §1-2)
The Presidency of the Synod
Within Roman canon law, only the bishop of Rome may convene and preside over an ecumenical council of the Church, either in his own personal presence, or through the representation of sanctioned legates, which Leo did indeed possess at Chalcedon. "To convene a general council and to preside over it pertains to the Roman Pontiff." (Decretals of Gregory IX, book I, tit. 6, ch. 4). In the Council of Trent, it was explicitly stated in the introduction: "The sacred and holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein…" (Session 1; Dec. 13, 1545).
As a preliminary point, the documents of this council confirm that it was the imperial commissioners who had the ultimate presidency at the council of Chalcedon, and directed the proceedings thereof; it was not the chief prerogatives of Paschasinus and Laurentius, the Roman legates of Pope Leo. In their synodal letter to Leo, the bishops said "Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you; while our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem." This terminology of being a "head to the members", and its application to Leo, does not give any support to the ecclesiology of Vatican I; since Rome did indeed have a primacy on accounts of its civil rank in the empire, rather than a jure divino grant by Christ Himself. Furthermore, the presidency of the imperial officials representing Marcian took place in spite of Leo's express wishes for Paschasinus to be the president of the synod. "But because certain of the brethren, as we mention with sorrow, have not been able to maintain catholic constancy against the whirlwinds of falsity, it is meet that my aforesaid brother and fellow bishop should preside in my place at the council." (Price, 1:99-100). In a footnote on the latter page, Fr. Price says "In fact Paschasinus presided only at the third session of the council. At all the other sessions the president was a lay official appointed by Marcian, the general Anatolius." (The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 1:100n38)
The authority of the imperial presidents is also seen in their actions during the 1st session of the council, in which Paschasinus and Laurentius requested that Dioscorus be expelled from the council, saying "either he must leave, or we shall leave....We cannot go against the instructions of the most blessed and apostolic bishop who occupies the apostolic see, nor against the ecclesiastical canons or the traditions of the fathers." (Richard Price, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon [3 vols: Liverpool University Press, 2005], 1:129-130). They further complained that Dioscorus had "presumed to hold a council without the leave of the apostolic see, which has never been allowed and has never been done." (Price, 1:129). However, as Price correctly points out in a footnote, the Robber Synod was summoned by Theodosius II, to which Leo sent legates (Epistle 37). In a similar fashion, Leo had originally wanted a renewed ecumenical council---but eventually accepted the imperial desire for it be held at Nicaea, and then moved to Chalcedon shortly thereafter.
And yet, this immediate expelling of Dioscorus did not take place as Rome requested. If they were the ones recognized to have the authority of directing the council, why did the trial of Dioscorus go on for as long as it did? Instead, there was intense deliberation at the bidding of the imperial commissioners, and the proceedings of the Robber Council of Ephesus (449) were read out loud. The church historian R.V. Sellers summarizes the episode: "No sooner had the first session (8 October) opened than Paschasinus, chief of the papal legates, arose to declare that he and his fellow-delegates from Rome had been commissioned by Leo to see that Dioscorus was not allowed to sit in the Council, and that, unless their protests were heard, they would depart. But the commissioners ruled that Dioscorus could be excluded only by a resolution of the whole Synod, and they asked the legates to state their charges against the Bishop of Alexandria." (R.V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon: A Historical and Doctrinal Survey [London: SPCK, 1961], pg. 104)
Only at the 3rd session did the papal legates formally take presidence and authority to direct the trial and condemnation of Dioscorus (Price, 3:41n44), especially since the imperial commissioners were absent at this time. After the allegations against Dioscorus were more fully enumerated---and Dioscorus had refused to appear even after being summoned three times---Paschasinus said "the most holy and blessed pope, the head of the universal church, through us his representatives and with the assent of the holy council, endowed as he is with the dignity of Peter the Apostle, who is called the foundation of the church, the rock of faith, and the doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, has stripped him of his episcopal dignity and excluded him from all priestly functions." (Price, 2:70). Price notes in a footnote on the same page that "The Greek translation is less effusive about papal primacy: 'Therefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of Great and Senior Rome, through us and the present most holy council, together with the thrice-blessed and wholly renowed Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and stay of the catholic church and the foundation of the orthodox faith,...'" Similarly, Price notes in a supplemental essay that the Greek and Latin versions of these statements intentionally have a different wording from one another. "Likewise, in the third session, when the Roman delegates pronounced sentence against Dioscorus, they referred to the pope as ‘the head of the universal church’, as we know from the text preserved in a letter of Pope Leo’s; but in the conciliar acts, in both the Greek and Latin editions, this high claim for Roman authority is omitted." (Richard Price, "Truth, Omission, and Fiction in the Acts of Chalcedon," in Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400-700, ed. Richard Price & Mary Whitby [Liverpool University Press, 2009], pg. 101)
In response to this, the bishops agreed with the judgment of Rome and confirmed Dioscorus' fate and excommunication. However, the manner in which they stated their agreement is important for understanding how they viewed papal authority. Oftentimes, their agreement with the Roman judgment also made mention that this was the same opinion of Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople. In this manner, Maximus of Antioch groups Leo and Anatolius together in his affirmation of the sentence (Price, 2:71). Theodore, the metropolitan bishop of Tarsus said "He [Dioscorus] has been justly condemned by the greatest sees -- the archbishops Leo and Anatolius of the most holy churches of Great Rome and New Rome. I too in agreement with them pronounce my sentence, adjudging him deprived of all pontifical ministry." (Price, 2:72). Some of the statements make no mention of Leo or his legates at all (Price, 2:82-84). The point here is that the fathers of Chalcedon accepted the excommunication of Dioscorus on the grounds that it was done by Leo, Anatolius, and the whole council --- and not merely Leo alone. This is why the formal Act of Deposition said that his excommunication was the work of the entire synod (Mansi, 6:1094).
The Infamous Canon
Canon 28 of Chalcedon has been hotly debated in discussions on the papacy between the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants. It is first off necessary that the full text of the canon its stipulations be provided:
"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)
Evagrius Scholasticus summarized the ruling of the canon as follows: "It was also determined that the see of New Rome, while ranking second to that of Old Rome, should take precedence of all others." (Ecclesiastical History, book II, ch. 4). And again, "Finally, it was decided that the see of Constantinople should rank next after that of Rome." (Ecclesiastical History, book II, ch. 18)
This article is not intended to be a comprehensive investigation of all of the issues, as that has already been done by other learned men. Rather, the following points will suffice to show the crux of the anti-papalist argument:
[1]. The text of the canon itself places the primacy of Rome in its status as the imperial city, in accordance with canon 9 of the Synod of Antioch (AD 341), which stipulates the correspondence and mirroring of ecclesiastical hierarchy to the civil sphere of the empire. This same principle was reaffirmed by the Chalcedonian fathers in canon 28: "And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example."
[2]. The actions of the Chalcedonian fathers in promulgating the privileges assigned to the respective sees in Canon 28 are incompatible with the medieval Roman canon law. For example, Gratian's Decretum asserts that "the Church of Rome instituted all Patriarchal supremacies, all Metropolitan primacies, episcopal Sees, all ecclesiastical orders, and dignities whatsoever."
[3]. The imperial comissioners said "All that we previously proposed the whole Synod has sanctioned." (Mansi 6:44). Charles Hefele paraphrases it as follows, "the prerogative assigned to the Church of Constantinople is, in spite of the opposition of the Roman legate, decreed by the Synod." (A History of the Councils of the Church, Vol. 3, pg. 428).
[4]. The imperial commissioners requested the bishops of Pontus and Asia to affirm that they fully consented to canon 28 and subscribed to without any pressure, and they did so. In response to the Roman legate Lucentius who made such an accusation, "the most reverend bishops cried out: No one was forced." (Price, 3:84).
[5]. In their defense, the papal legates claimed that canon 28 violated the Sixth Canon of Nicaea. However, the textual version of the canon possessed by Leo's representantives is agreed upon by virtually all scholars and church historians to have been forged and tampered with; this Latin version of the canon contained the statement "The Roman Church has always held the Primacy."
[6]. Leo's perception of this canon also indicates that it was not particularly friendly to papal claims. In his letter to the empress Pulcheria, he wrote "The consent of the Bishops which is opposed to the sacred Canons established at Nicaea, joining with ourselves your Piety's faith, we declare void, and by the authority of blessed Peter annul it by a declaration which is absolutely general. [et per auctoritatem Beati Petri Apostoli generali]" (PL 54:999). And again in his letter to emperor Marcian, " Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation. And in the faithful execution of this task by the aid of Christ I am bound to display an unflinching devotion; for it is a charge entrusted to me, and it tends to my condemnation if the rules sanctioned by the Fathers and drawn up under the guidance of God’s Spirit at the Synod of Nicæa for the government of the whole Church are violated with my connivance (which God forbid), and if the wishes of a single brother have more weight with me than the common good of the Lord’s whole house." (Leo, Letter to Marcian, in NPNF2, 12:75). And finally, in his correspondence with Maximus of Antioch: "On this, however, my judgment lays especial stress that, although a majority of priests through the wiliness of some came to a decision which is found opposed to those constitutions of the 318 fathers, it must be considered void on principles of justice: since the peace of the whole Church cannot otherwise be preserved, except due respect be invariably shown to the canons.... For anything that is not in agreement with their rules and constitutions can never obtain the assent of the Apostolic See." (Leo, Letter 119, in NPNF2, 12:86/87) This annulment pronounced by Leo was not observed by the fathers of Chalcedon.
[7]. Some Romanist apologists appeal to the words of Anatolius to Leo, where he reassured the Roman bishop of the council's kindness to the papal legates, and asked Leo to confirm the canons (Price, 3:141), saying that it was "reserved for the authority of your Blessedness." This idea of Leo annulling Canon 28 was repeated again in the 19th century by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum (1896)- "The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, by the very fact that it lacks the assent and approval of the Apostolic See, is admitted by all to be worthless." However, the circumstances surrounding this episode make it plain what Anatolius' real intentions were. For, he made this statement under pressure by the emperor to bring a quick resolution to the conflict which had been brewing for some time between the council and the Roman legates. It was not a formal recognition of papal primacy and supreme authority on the part of Leo. Indeed, the actions of the eastern bishops show how much credence they gave to canon 28, for Anatolius had already acted on its legal ruling and appointed Maximus as the bishop of Antioch in place of the deposed Domnus. "Anatolius and his successors practically retained the privileges conceded to their See at Chalcedon, and never gave actual effect to their curteous words and the assurances which they made to the Pope. Protected and supported on this point by the Byzantine Emperors, they remained in possession of the contested prerogatives, and even began to make the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem more and more dependent upon them." (Charles Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, 3:448).
Liberatus of Carthage wrote the following: "And another, in which, after the departure of the judges and senators and legates of the Apostolic See, ecclesiastical rules were established and certain privileges assigned to the Church of Constantinople, this being usurped by Anatolius, bishop of the same city, taking occasion from the condemnation of Dioscorus. Which on the next day, the legates of Pope Leo, learning of (which was the last and twelfth day of the council), requested that they should again meet with the judges at the council: who, inquiring of the council what had been ordered the day before, having read the acts, learned what Anatolius, with the consent of the council, had done and obtained: who contradicted his presumption, that contradiction was not accepted by all the judges and bishops; and although the apostolic see still contradicts now, what was confirmed by the synod, under the patronage of the emperor, remains the same." (Liberatus, Breviariurn causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, ch. 13; P.L. 67:1014)
The French Roman Catholic priest and historian Louis-Sébastien Tillemont (1637-1698) wrote "this canon remained and was implemented, despite the opposition of [Pope] St. Leo and his successors, because of the emperors’ patronage." (Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles [16 vols., 1693-1712], 15:715 & 730)
Leo himself complained bitterly about Anatolius' consecration of Maximus, with the same objection given by the papal legates at Chalcedon: "And so after the not irreproachable beginning of your ordination, after the consecration of the bishop of Antioch, which you claimed for yourself contrary to the regulations of the canons, I grieve, beloved, that you have fallen into this too, that you should try to break down the most sacred constitutions of the Nicene canons : as if this opportunity had expressly offered itself to you for the See of Alexandria to lose its privilege of second place, and the church of Antioch to forego its right to being third in dignity, in order that when these places had been subjected to your jurisdiction, all metropolitan bishops might be deprived of their proper honour." (Leo the Great, Epistle 103)
And again, in a letter to Julian, bishop of Cos: "This too we would have you know, that bishop Anatolius after our prohibition so persisted in his rash presumption as to call upon the bishops of Illyricum to subscribe their names: this news was brought us by the bishop who was sent by the bishop of Thessalonica to announce his consecration. We have declined to write to Anatolius about this, although you might have expected us to do so, because we perceived he did not wish to be reformed. I have made two versions of my letter to the Synod, one with a copy of my letter to Anatolius subjoined, one without it; leaving it to your judgment to deliver the one which you think ought to be given to our most clement prince and to keep the other." (Leo the Great, Letter 117)
Summarizing the above letter, Hefele writes "he [Leo] says that to Anatolius he writes no longer, since he persists in his presumption, and has induced the Illyrian bishops also to subscribe the 28th canon." (A History of the Councils of the Church, 3:446)
The 28th canon and the privileges given to Constantinople therein were also upheld by Anatalius' patriarchal successors. The Monophysite historian Zacharias Mitylene records the following debate which occured between Timothy Aelurus and the patriarch Gennadius:
"They say concerning this Salophacilous that he tried to persuade the Alexandrians to be associated with him, and as though to reject the Council [of Chalcedon] he wrote in the diptychs the name of Dioscorus. When Leo of Rome heard these things, he forbade it. On one occasion, when he went up to Constantinople, he had a great dispute before the emperor with Gennadius who was the bishop after Anatolius. [Timothy] said, ‘I do not accept the Council, that it should make your see [of Constantinople] second after that of Rome, and that it should profane the honour of my own see,’ whereupon the emperor laughed when he saw them, and heard that the two priests were vying for preeminence. And he wrote to give information to the [bishop] of Rome concerning this dispute, and he wrote on that occasion that it is fitting that each see should be restored to [the honour] that it had [had] earlier, and he made this known to the emperor. So much concerning this Timothy [Aelurus]." (The Chronicle of Zacharias of Mitylene, book IV, ch. 10)
Not only Leo, but also the later anti-Chalcedonians attacked the authority of canon 28. Timothy Aelurus correctly understood what that canon ruled, and he protested against it, since it gave greater preeminence to Constantinople than to Alexandria---where Timothy had usurped the patriarchate after a group of Monophysites murdered Proterius (Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, book II, ch. 8), the successor of Dioscorus.
[8]. Though Papists would take Leo's annulment of canon 28 as absolute and final, this brings them into contradiction with their own Council of Florence, which stated in its 6th Session (July 6, 1439): "In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, … Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights." (Norman P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. I, Council of Florence [Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990], pgs. 526–527). And again in the Fourth Lateran Council of the Papists (AD 1215), we read "Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank." (Canon V)
This is also confirmed again the laws of the eastern empire during the Monophysite controversy: "We therefore ordain that the canons of the holy church which were enacted or confirmed by the four holy councils, that is to say, of the 318 at Nicea, of the 150 holy fathers at Constantinople, and of the first held at Ephesus, at which Nestorius was condemned, and of that held at Chalcedon at which Eutyches and Nestorius were anathematized, shall have the force of law. We accept the dogmas of the aforesaid four holy councils as divine scriptures, and uphold their canons as laws. In accordance with their decisions, therefore, we decree that the most holy pope of the elder Rome is the foremost of all priestly authorities; that the most blessed archbishop of Constantinople, the new Rome, holds second place after the most holy apostolic see of the elder Rome, and has precedence above all others." (Emperor Justinian, Novellae Constitutiones, 131.1-2)
One last important point to note is that the 28th canon is included in the vast majority of codices which contain the Canons of Chalcedon, such as the Syntagma XIV Titulorum (AD 580), which was a revision of the work of John Scholasticus. It is included in the Prisca version, the significance of which is aptly noted by Judith Herrin: "So despite the fact that the other two Latin translations ignored Canon 28, through the Prisca translation it became known in some parts of the west. Further, the third canon of Constantinople (381), which established the superiority of Constantinople over the sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, and was cited in Canon 28, was included in all three new Latin versions." (Judith Herrin, "The Quinisext Council (692) as a Continuation of Chalcedon," in Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400-700, pg. 154)
Canon 28 is also found in the Chieti and Justell manuscripts, and in the canonical collections of John Zonaras, Theodore Balsamon, and Constantine Harmenopoulos. As many also know, Canon 28 was reaffirmed by canon 36 of the famous Synod in Trullo (AD 692), which is commonly known as the Quinisext Council.
In this article, I also 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), pg. 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)
Flavian's Appeal to Leo
Many apologists of Vatican I will cite the letter which Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, sent to Pope Leo after the debacle that was the Second Synod of Ephesus---the intention of which was to utterly reverse the sentence against Eutyches pronounced by the Home Synod of Constantinople (AD 448), over which Eusebius of Dorylaeum presided. It is presupposed by the Romanists that an appeal argues that Flavian believed that Leo in and of himself had the authority to repeal his unjust excommunication by Dioscorus and reinstate him to this patriarchate. After describing the tumultuous events which had taken place at Ephesus, Flavian said---
"And since all was going unjustly against me, as if by a settled agreement, after the iniquitous proposal which, of his own motion, he levelled at me, on my appealing to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the holy council in general which meets under your holiness, a crowd of soldiers at once surrounds me, prevents me from taking refuge at the holy altar, as I desired, and tried to drag me out of the church. Then amid the utmost tumult I barely succeeded in reaching a certain part of the church, and there hid myself with my companions, not without being watched, however, to prevent my reporting to you all the wrongs which have been done me."
Therefore, the chief question which presents itself is whether or not the grounds for Flavian's petition was a sort of jure divino authority conferred by Christ upon the bishop of Rome and his successors, which is to be recognized as binding in all times and all places within the government of the church?
However, this pretense is proven utterly false by an examination of the documents themselves.
[1]. In order to better understand the nature and proper import of Flavian's appeal, one must remember the hierarchical structure of the Church's patriarchates at this time. According to the Nicene canons, they descended in the following order: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Given that Flavian had just been deposed by the patriarch of Alexandria, and Domnus had been deposed in Antioch, who was Flavian naturally most desposed to plead his cause? Understood in this light, his appeal to Rome is more than understandable. Only the West was available for him to petition for aid.
[2]. Flavian understood the authority of an ecumenical synod to supersede that of the Roman Pontiff, and to be able to provide a binding judgment and exoneration of himself. This is clear in the text of the appeal itself, wherein Flavian writes:---
"I therefore beseech your holiness not to let things rest in regard to this mad plot which has been carried out against me, since there are no grounds produced for bringing me into judgement; but rise up first in the cause of our right faith which has been recklessly destroyed; and further, in view of the violated laws of the Church, assume their guardianship, simply stating the facts throughout to the more honourable among the people, and instructing with suitable letters our faithful and Christian Emperor; writing moreover to the clergy of the holy church of Constantinople, and the very religious monks, also to Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem, to Thalassius of Cappadocian Caesarea, to Stephen of Ephesus, Eusebius of Ancyra, Cyrus of Aphrodisias, and the other holy bishops who have consented to the base plot against me, and to Dioscorus who lorded it, so to say, over the sacred synod at Ephesus; issuing a decree also, as God shall inspire your mind, that an united synod of the fathers both of West and East may be held, and the same faith preached everywhere, that the constitutions of our fathers may be upheld, and all be brought to nothing and undone which has now been effected evilly and darkly by a sort of gamester’s trick; so healing this terrible wound which is now creeping and spreading over almost the whole world. Those, however, who under great pressure of violence subscribed and consented to this unjust sentence, are very few in number. The bishops who did not consent to this iniquity are much more numerous, as the reading of the above written report to your blessedness will explain."
"I entreat you therefore before the undivided Trinity of the one Godhead, which is injured by these evil doings, and which is the guardian of your kingdom, and before Christ's holy angels that all things remain intact as they were before the judgment, and that they await the weightier decision of the Synod at which the whole number of the bishops in the whole world is gathered together: and do not allow yourselves to bear the weight of others' misdoing. We are constrained to say this plainly by the fear of a constraining necessity. But keep before your eyes the blessed Peter's glory, and the crowns which all the Apostles have in common with him, and the joys of the martyrs who had no other incentive to suffering but the confession of the true Godhead and the perfect continuance in Christ. And now that this confession is being godlessly impugned by some few men, all the churches of our parts and all the priests implore your clemency with tears in accordance with the request which Flavian makes in his appeal, to command the assembling together of a special Synod in Italy, in order that all opposition may be expelled or pacified, and that there may be no deviation from or ambiguity in the Faith: and to it should also come the bishops of all the Eastern provinces, that, if any have wandered out of the way of Truth, they may be recalled to their allegiance by wholesome remedies, and they who are under a more grievous charge may either be reduced to submission by counsel or cut off from the one Church." (Leo the Great, Letter 43)
No comments:
Post a Comment