Did Chalcedon prove Roman papal supremacy?

[Mina Monir]

when we read the acts of Chalcedon council , and in the same time the letters of Leo the pope of rome we find a very strong language supports the petrine suprimacy. a Catholic brother sent to me the acts ... underlined a very clear quotes by eastern and roman fathers defend for Leo not like any other archbishop ... but like a one Pope and head for the Apostolic see. the ephisus council 449 was called the 'Robbers synod' because leo's tome was not read . flavian of constantinople went to leo as refuge . leo did not accept this council because there was no permission from 'peter's successor' to held it. we know well how did leo defend for his suprimacy , to be able- at least - to gather the christian world under his hands to face the barbarian invader 'Attilla '... but the strange is that there was a taste of a constantinoplian 'subordination' in the language of flavian and some other eastern fathers . if I consider Chalcedon a canonical council , I wont blame my catholic brothers to defend for papal suprimacy. but I hope I could find an interpretation here for chalcedon in this point. and I think we need a true justify for leo's writings because -as I know- he is considered as a saint in Eastern Orthodox churches. I think I'll revise the acts and letters and post them to discuss them in detail. at last, Leo here in egypt is considered a criminal not a heretic... not because the matter of (of two natures) or (from two natures) ... nor the story of his tome which was full of Question marks and wondered Father Florovsky himself "and was accepted and blessed by Nestorius" ... but for his blesses for the roman troops to torture the egyptians and the famous 'Ekhmim' Massacre which was blessed by his papal hands.
in Christ,
Mina

[Kosta]

The council of Chalcedon proved the opposite. The benchmark for Orthodox doctrine on the 2 natures was based on ST Cyril of Alexandria's writings. This deceased patriarch was what all agreed to be orthodox. The bishop of Rome, Pope Leo issued his tome which had to agree with what Cyril wrote. That way both east and west apostolic tradition was one.
It was analyzed to make sure it agreed with Cyril;s doctrine. Some bishops in the council claimed it did not. To this day they claim this (non-chalcedon churches).
The majority of bishops however did accept its Orthodoxy.
At that point the bishops cried out," ....So we all believe, this the orthodox believe. ANathema to him who does not believe. Peter has spoken thru Leo. So taught the apostles. . Piously and truly did did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taight the same thing, anathema to him that does not believe..."

In fact in the 5th session of the coucil the Illyrian bishops thought Pope Leos's writings had nestorian leanings so they created havoc by shouting, " The OPPONENTS are nestorian let them go to Rome"!

if there is any doubt keep in mind this is the council that passed canon 28 elevating constantinople as being EQUAL as rome in all priveleges but rank second to her in seniority only.

As far as the robber synod and the role the See of Alexandria played there had to do with politics. Keep in mind that many times acouncil takes decades to be truly considered a legitimate council. It has to be accepted by the conscience of the church and may take many years. If it does not it becomes a robber synod. In 381 AD Constantinople was already elevated the second place eclipsing Alexandria. It was political. Alexandria saw there dominance being eroded by the 'new rome' so it wanted to humiliate and weaken the constantinopolitan See, in fact this was why Alexandria lead the campaign against Nestorius. It was a great oppurtunity to showcase the strength of the alexandrian see over that of constantinople. At the same time Leo saw his see's dominance diminish as well. So he done and said so much nonsense about his "petrine authority" yet no one listened to him or his hot air.

[Kieran P.]

At the same time Leo saw his see's dominance diminish as well. So he done and said so much nonsense about his "petrine authority" yet no one listened to him or his hot air.


And yet still Rome is the strong See, and both Alexandria and Cosntantinople diminished.

Funny, innit?

;-)

[John Charmley]

Dear Kieran,

I seem to be following in your footsteps this morning.

We have to remember that this is a site devoted to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, and therefore an unlikely place in which to find many supporters of Papal supremacy; indeed, there are times when I feel sorry for the EP, who seems to get it in the neck from those preaching obedience to the hierarchy, except when they disagree with it in full conscience (a position not unknown elsewhere, of course).

On it we find a range of views among the Orthodox, but all Eastern Orthodox are, I suspect, bound to take a view of Chalcedon which differs from that of your Church, and of mine, and there have been exhaustive, not to say exhausting, discussions of these matters elsewhere on this site.

Perhaps our brother's somewhat triumphalist tone invited your amusing riposte, and it would be no bad thing if the exchange makes us all think a little harder about how we relate to others who bear the name Christian.

In Christ,

John

[Kieran P.]

We have to remember that this is a site devoted to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, and therefore an unlikely place in which to find many supporters of Papal supremacy

Hiya John, :)

Point taken, and I'm enjoying myself reading the Orthdox view here. I hope nobody takes offense at my remarks!

God bless you,

Kieran

[John Charmley]

Dear Kieran,

When, at times, I wonder whether on the Internet one can practice the art of nuance, I am cheered by your eirenic and sensitive reaction to my post.

Thank you for your understanding - and for your posts.

The more we who confess the crucified and risen Christ understand about each other and what we actually believe (rather than what we think the other believes) the better it is; as you say, that involves no sacrifice of the Truth - just an entirely welcome humbling of our own prideful natures.

He who died that we might be forgiven deserves much more than that from us; if that is the least we can give Him, we should do it with a cheerful heart, even as we look for other ways of walking in His steps.

This forum exists to explore Chalcedonian Orthodoxy through patristic and monastic study; it does, I think, a wonderful work, and those of us who are outside that Orthodoxy, value the welcome we meet with here - and the dialogue.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Hiya John, :)

Point taken, and I'm enjoying myself reading the Orthdox view here. I hope nobody takes offense at my remarks!

God bless you,

Kieran


I doubt anyone takes offense at your remarks. There's an intensity to Orthodoxy which those who come to it for the first time are very often very struck by. For some this is positive- they're just aware that they've not really seen anything like this before. But others are shocked as if they've just seen fulfilled every cliche about religious prejudice.

What we need to point out is that for us what is at issue is the most important thing possible- do we choose life or death. And obviously as Christians this revolves around Christ. So for us Christ and the Church is literally life and death not because we are trying to be hateful but rather because this has personally touched the lives of those who speak about this. There's something urgent about this which gives the Christian message a personal intensity & challenge in regards to others.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosta]

In Chalcedon the standard for Orthodoxy was the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Leo's tome was scrutinized not Cyril's writings.

In the 5th session the Illyrian bishops accused Pope Leo of Nestorianism in his writings where they chanted, "The opponents are nestorian let them go to Rome".

After examining the tome, the Fathers of the council agreed that its theology was Orthodox. This was the largest council ever held with over 630 Fathers present and the Antiochans who most favored the "2 nature" understanding were a minority.

The Two Nature definition was first taught by St Amphilocius in 385 a.d. in Asia Minor to combat the heretic Apollinarius. Apollinarius originated the phrase "One incarnate nature of Christ the Word" in his epistle to Jovian so it was natural that the two natures won out.

When the council accepted Pope Leos tome they proclaimed that both Leo and Cyril taught the same thing:

..."Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe."

As we can see the pope had no supreme stature over everyone other Fathers' theology. This is the same council that passed canon 28 and was accepted by all while Leo wrote to the Emperess Pulcheria in an attempt to annul it.

[John Charmley]

Dear Kosta,

You make your points well, and provide a good corrective to other versions.

It was indeed only when the bishops were convinced that what Leo wrote was Cyrilline that they acclaimed his tome.

Professor McGuckin provides an excellent and convincing account in his great book on St. Cyril.

One of the reasons we need Orthodox scholarship of this quality (and that of the work on the study sections of this site) is to help provide an accurate picture of a past that has been, too often, presented in the west from only one point of view.

Thank you for your contribution.

In Christ,

John

[Jose Lauro Strapasson]

Actualy proves the "Peter primacy of Rome" to be a lie.

"....For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city...."

Imperial city! very simple, just this.

[Kieran P.]

Actualy proves the "Peter primacy of Rome" to be a lie.

"....For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city...."

Imperial city! very simple, just this.

Hiya Jose,

Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't Canon 28 the very one which the Latin Church both disputed and rejected? The same one which was composed and passed in the absence of the papal legates?

The only one from that Council which Pope Leo refused to ratify? Wasn't it really a reflection of nationalist ambition and power?

As I say, I maybe wrong, but canon 28 is controversial, to say the very least!

God bless us all!

[Kosta]

Yes Leo resisted it, but no one listened to him. In fact he wrote an epistle to the emperess Pulcheria lamenting how the Illyrian bishops have accepted canon 28 after he tried to persuade them not to.

Pope Gregory about 100 years later wrote against Constantinople for assuming the title of universal patriarch. He did not dispute that the E.P. wasnt a patriarch only to the title of "ecumenical". Once again the title became normatove for the See of Constantinople.

[Kieran P.]

Yes Leo resisted it, but no one listened to him.

Hi Kosta, :)

When you say "no one listened to him", I wonder what you mean. The Catholic Church listened to him. The canons of that council were sent to him for ratification and he ratified everything - except canon 28, which was voted in the absence of the Latin prelates.

I understand that this is viewed differently in the east, so more properly you should perhaps have said "no one in the Eastern Church listened to him", but even then, I wouldn't be so sure.

God bless you.

[John Charmley]

Dear Kieran, Dear Kosta,

I suspect we have established time and again across this site that nothing will prove anything to those who do not wish to be convinced of it, and that this applies in special measure to things like the Papal claim to primacy.

No good Orthodox is going to accept the Papal claim in the way it has come to be made, and no good Catholic is going to accept the Orthodox caveats. Here, surely, we have to respect the integrity of the other and, in Christian love and fellowship, agree to disagree?

I, for one, am happy we can do this without 'Crusaders' ransacking Constantinople, Papal legates excommunicating Patriarchs, and Imperial troops trying to secure uniformity of belief by killing people. Whenever, as an historian, I am tempted to think there is no such thing as 'progress', I dwell on that thought. However, whenever as a layman I am comforted by that, I am discomforted in equal measure by a suspicion that many would disagree!

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John,

I think though that where the tension lies is between the correct point that not all beliefs of conviction should be expressed at any time or place or way- ie the need for discernment- and the more problematic point that disagreement between us should lead us to minimize our convictions.

I would suggest that the latter in fact never applies unless one has lost all faith in one's convictions or those we share as being members of the Church we are part of. And of course no matter what we may say otherwise this position is hardly tenable for someone who is pursuing a path of attempted faithfulness to their own church.

What do I mean? Conflict and the ways this has been manifested over the centuries aside, we still have two contradictory ways of seeing authority within the Church, both of which are fundamental to what we believe the Church is.

I would day this doesn't mean both are equally correct. I would say that it means that we have to choose which we believe is correct while of course allowing that abuses have occurred in our own midst through the centuries. Correct doesn't necessitate perfection.

But the main point is that what is happening is that all of us are making choices made on faith as this is expressed by our church. Conviction and belief always acts in some sort of consistent relationship with one's own church otherwise again we end up essentially separating ourselves from our own church.

So I would say the crucial anchor point for us is always a shared conviction of faith as this is expressed by our own church. Of course we can and in a way should question how consistent our church has been in regards to its own convictions. But amidst this we still need to be in a place of conviction and of a belief consistent with our own church. Without this I really think we propose something that adds up to a faith without conviction which is self-contradictory.

Faith implicitly involves personal conviction in regards to the church one is part of. In reality there is never one without the other. And even though this is not its necessary goal this conviction puts us in a position of contradiction in regards to those seeking to live in conformity to the convictions of their own church.

This is why in our discussion with our good friend Kieran I think it very important to point out that Roman Catholicism is being consistent with its own ecclesiological sense in how it defines conviction to the church. And even though we use the same words to define this conviction in fact we mean something quite different.

Which personally I think is shown most of all in how for the west even difference is seen as sameness. This isn't I think a result of just a difference in mental attitudes between us. In fact it is a result of two different ways of seeing the Church & of how one is part of it. And probably by how we are defining personal conviction in very different ways.

But which I agree doesn't mean another Crusade or storming of the walls of Rome is needed!

In Christ- Fr Raphael






No good Orthodox is going to accept the Papal claim in the way it has come to be made, and no good Catholic is going to accept the Orthodox caveats. Here, surely, we have to respect the integrity of the other and, in Christian love and fellowship, agree to disagree?

I, for one, am happy we can do this without 'Crusaders' ransacking Constantinople, Papal legates excommunicating Patriarchs, and Imperial troops trying to secure uniformity of belief by killing people. Whenever, as an historian, I am tempted to think there is no such thing as 'progress', I dwell on that thought. However, whenever as a layman I am comforted by that, I am discomforted in equal measure by a suspicion that many would disagree!

In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for your wise words, which I feel sure go along with our friend Kieran's formulations here and in other threads that we make no progress by ignoring differences or compromising on the Truth we hold so dear.

Disagreement courteously and firmly expressed should lead away from minimising our convictions; that it also sometimes reveals where we misunderstand each other, can be helpful in clarifying exactly where, understanding each other perfectly, we disagree entirely.

I would agree entirely (and suspect few would not) that

So I would say the crucial anchor point for us is always a shared conviction of faith as this is expressed by our own church. Of course we can and in a way should question how consistent our church has been in regards to its own convictions. But amidst this we still need to be in a place of conviction and of a belief consistent with our own church. Without this I really think we propose something that adds up to a faith without conviction which is self-contradictory.

Indeed, I suspect that the firmer our conviction in Our Faith and Our Church is, the more we can, in love and understanding, hear what it is others are really saying, rather than, as so often, catch the echoes of old arguments. None of that is to argue that there will not be disagreements - for the reasons you give so eloquently, there are bound to be; but the manner of their expression will be more befitting those who preach the Gospel of Christ crucified and risen.

Again, thank you for your words - and the manner of their expression.

In Christ,

John

[Kieran P.]

I'd like to add my gratitude for the tone and wisdom of the last few posts here. I came to this board to engage in a meaningful way with other Christians and have been impressed by what I've learned, if that doesn't sound patronising!

One thing we also must bear in mind is the manner of our calling to Christ. I was utterly opposed to and contemptous of the Catholic Church until the graceful intercession of Padre Pio into my life. Since then I 've discovered a wholly (and holy!) interior organisation which day after day surprises and challenges and fulfils me, in partaking of the liturgy and the daily office and in reading of our saints and history. Some of these great saints we share in common with the east.

Some history I'd discovered had been prejudicial against the Latin Church, and I've learned a lot of how these things happen, too.

I hope to grow in Christ, is all, through His grace and through the sacraments of the Church. I'm sure that for whatever disagreements we have, we each share in this conviction, which is more difficult to uphold in the western world than ever before.

God bless you all and keep you well...

[Predrag Mandic]

Christ is risen!

I think that we see things differently.

I was always under impression that Rome was the primal seat due to the fact that it was the see of the Bishop of the capital city (as given by the Canon XXVII of the Holy imperial and universal council of Chalcedon: …we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the one hundred fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome...)

I don't think it ever had anything to do with St. Peter. That is, the idea that Rome is THE CHAIR - in the East at least - had nothing to do with the idea proposed by the West - that because St. Peter was the chief Apostle and then he became the Pope of Rome - every other Pope of Rome shall be the chief Bishop.

Now, it is obvious that the West has since early days endeavored to propose this “Petrine Line” and not the “Capital City Line”.

It is also obvious that Rome had played a very important role in the first 1000 years – to say otherwise is to ignore the reality. But, it is also ignorant to say that the “powers of Roman Bishops” through those days were exactly the same as the powers that he exercise today is also ignorant – for obviously the Magisterium and Infallibility in any sense did not exist.

As the days went by and the East and West parted – Rome became the only Apostolic see in the West.

If this chair which wanted supremacy in the days when there were four others in the East how much more it wanted the same when it remained the only one (at least as it was viewed by the RCC).

No wonder Rome was able to establish her power over the entire West – for what did others have to show? Vienna, Berlin, Madrid, Sao Paolo…. They just weren’t Constantinople, Jerusalem, even Nicomedia or Ephesus.

I don’t know – but as far as I can see both extremities are wrong – that the Pope of Rome was just another bishop – and – that the Pope of Rome was infallible ruler of the Church.

[John Charmley]

Dear Predrag,

I suspect that your concluding remarks are as close to a consensus as is likely to be reached - if only because, as Fr. Raphael commented some time ago, to be true to our respective, identical and divisive ecclesiologies, there cannot be agreement on the central issue since the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics see the Pope in different ways.

The answer to the initial question which poses the title of this thread is that Chalcedon proved nothing about the position of Rome at the time, and in retrospect proves equally little - save to those who would wish it to do so.

It seems clear enough that as both the Imperial City and as the place where both Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred, Rome occupied a special place in the heart of the early Church; indeed, for many of us it still does, for those and other reasons. However, the attempt to convert that into a position of primacy has been the occasion for far too many disputes which have divided us each from the other. Since we are all sinners, there is not one of our Churches without blame, and perhaps one day we can all let go of our pride and repent? Until then we can apportion blame according to the views we have been taught, should we so wish; though which of us is so without sin as to be able to cast the first stone, is a question worth posing.

In that Christ who came to save not just the righteous, but also the sinners, of whom I am the chief,

John

[Father Serafim]

Perhaps certain bishops and heretics should repent but not the Church. I sense a touch of Anglican comprehensiveness - ism, here.

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Serafim,

I was, of course, referring to the human beings concerned, rather than the institution guided by the Holy Spirit; but I am intrigued by the notion that only 'certain bishops' should repent, since I have always been taught that all humans are sinners and stand in need of repentance.

In Christ,

John