 |
| Robert Bellarmine |
#7 - John Chrysostom
Bellarmine next appeals to Chrysostom's exchange with Pope Innocent I as proof for his claims (the context of this appeal was due to Chrysostom's deposition by Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria). A few things may be said in response here:
1) Bellarmine does not tell his readers this important fact in this episode of church history: namely, that Chrysostom did not appeal only to Innocent I, but also to Venerus, the bishop of Milan, and Chromatius, the bishop of Aquilea.
"It was entirely natural that John, now effectively primate of the eastern churches, should resort to Innocent in his hour of crisis. His move in no way implied that he recognised the holy see as the supreme court of appeal in the church (much as the pope would have relished it if he had). Such an idea, absent from his sermons and other writings, is ruled out by his simultaneous approach to the two other western patriarchs." (J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth - The Story of John Chrysostom: Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, pg. 247)
2) Chrysostom in his correspondences appeals to the canons of Nicaea and Constantinople I as being authoritative, not merely the judgment of Pope Innocent.
3) Innocent wrote the following to both Chrysostom and Theophilus: "Brother Theophilus, we acknowledge both thee and Brother John to be in our communion, as in our first letters we made known our mind...except a fitting judgment follow upon such acts of mockery, it is impossible that we should without reason decline John’s communion. So that if thou art confident in the judgment, meet the Council assembling according to Christ, and there set forth thy accusations according to the Canons of Nicaea, which alone the Roman Church acknowledges, and so thou wilt have undeniable security." (PL 20:493, 495)
Innocent himself does not act in a way consistent with the the views of Bellarmine on this situation. Rather than appealing to his own authority jure divino as the bishop of Rome/successor of the Apostle Peter, he instead views the canons of Nicaea as the ultimate judge in this controversy ("which alone the Roman church acknowledges" [i.e. in the specific situation at hand]).
#8 - Cyril of Alexandria
Bellarmine appeals to the well-known correspondence between Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Celestine, and Nestorius. I have dealt with this more comprehensively in this article.
Bellarmine then cites two passages from the text Thesauri, which is commonly attributed to Cyril. In fairness, this text is contained in Patrologia Graeca vol. 35, however the words given to us by Bellarmine are not there at all. Bellarmine himself admits that these words are not contained in the extant copies (at his time) of Thesauri. However, he attempts to defend their authenticity by saying that they are cited by Thomas Aquinas in his treatise Contra Errores Graecorum (the full text can be read here), and that a bishop at the Council of Florence cited them (during session 7). However, I do not find either of these proofs convincing that these words were a part of the original words of Cyril of Alexandria. I checked the acts of Florence from two different sources and could not find any reference to the Thesauri or even to Cyril of Alexandria at all during session 7 of the council. Regardless, even if it is there, it close to 1000 years removed from the period in which Cyril of Alexandria lived (and the same goes for the citation from Thomas Aquinas)! This is in no way conclusive for discerning whether these words were a part of Thesauri or not. We would need evidence that is centuries closer to Theodoret (at least to some degree) before we can even think about the authenticity of these words in any sort of meaningful way.
Regardless, we have evidence elsewhere from Cyril that he did not believe in the papacy the way Bellarmine did or in the way that the Roman Catholic church believes today. This is found in the same case above with the controversy between John Chrysostom and Theophilus of Alexandria. Theophilus, before he died, did not put Chrysostom's name in the diptychs, contrary to the view of Pope Innocent I (though, to be fair, Innocent [as far as I know] never made an official decree on this specific issue or anything like that). After Theophilus died, Cyril of Alexandria succeeded him as the patriarch and followed his decision is not putting Chrysostom's name in the diptychs (until 419 AD) contrary to the probable opinion of Innocent I.
#9 - Theodoret
Bellarmine next appeals to two passages from the letters of Theodoret of Cyrus. I will deal with them individually.
“I await the judgment of your Apostolic seat, and I beg and entreat your holiness that you would impose the might of your just and right judgment to my appeal, and that it might bid you to hasten and show that my doctrine follows in the Apostolic footsteps.” (Letter 113 to Pope Leo)
"Yet here was an Asian Bishop who was in charge of 800 churches, as he says in the same place, nevertheless he acknowledges the Roman Pontiff as his supreme judge." (Robert Bellarmine)
I respond with the following points:
1) In light of other historical data, we can be reasonably sure that Theodoret was making a general appeal to the bishops of the West, not to Pope Leo by himself. This is shown by the fact that Theodoret also wrote a letter to Anatolius, the patrician of Constantinople, at the same time (letter 119).
2) A few years later in 451 AD, at the Council of Chalcedon, when Theodoret was introduced at session 1, they did not immediately view him as being restored to his see, despite the actions of Pope Leo to that end, showing their lack of recognition of papal authority in that regard (similar to the case of Canon 28 of that same council). The council's judgment was "in accordance with the decree of the holy Council, Theodoret shall again be put into possession of the Church of Cyrus" (Mansi 4:1302). The very fact that the Council of Chalcedon took so long to restore Theodoret to his See, despite the judgment of Pope Leo, shows that they did not view him as having ultimate jurisdictional authority.
Bellarmine next cites letter 116 to Renatus:
“They have despoiled me of priesthood and thrown me from the cities; neither is age considered in religion nor reverence for grey hairs. This is why I beg you, that you might persuade the most holy Archbishop Leo, that he would use his Apostolic authority, and that he might bid me to approach your Council. That holy seat holds the reigns of government over every church of the world.”
At first glance, it may seem like Theodoret viewed Leo has having universal jurisdiction. I note the following things:
1) A better translation of the last sentence (in light of the whole context of this statement in the following statements) is better translated "For that holy see has precedence over all churches in the world" (this is the translation of the NewAdvent website).
2) Notice the full context of the words of Theodoret: "For that holy see has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the apostles undefiled".
The main reason why Theodoret views Rome "as having precedence over all churches in the world" is not because it possessed universal jurisdiction and authority jure divino, but rather because it has remained orthodox in its confession of faith throughout the preceding centuries up to that point. Until then, they had not had any pope who had been guilty of heresy. If Theodoret had the view Bellarmine did, he would've said something alone the lines "For that holy see has presedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, it possesses supreme authority since its bishop is the successor of the Apostle Peter." But that is not at all what Theodoret says in any way shape or form. It is simply due to Rome's firm orthodox standing at that point in time, as we see explicitly stated in the letter itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment