Dear Orthodox11,
Whilst it is true that St Leo the Great did have slightly unorthodox views regarding Rome's primacy (though by no means the same as current RCC doctrine) it is a mistake to say that this was ever accepted by the rest of the Church, nor by the Council of Chalcedon.
I would generally agree with this, but I think that the Chalcedonian Fathers are still generally liable for his errors, since they let him get away with it. Leo’s unorthodox ecclesiology was a substantial cause of the division that took place; it would be wrong to abstractly diconnect it from the actual historical event of Chalcedon and its historical consequences.
I, personally, would confidently assert that had Leo understood his position and the position of his See correctly within the framework of an Orthodox ecclesiology, there would never have been a Council of Chalcedon in the first place.
Pope Leo, as you know, wrote his famous Tome to deal with the Chrisological controversy.
Christology is indeed the
subject matter of the Tome, yet whether Leo was genuinely concerned with defending Orthodox Christology (i.e. whether he actually wrote the Tome for the primary purpose of dealing with the Christological controversy), is a question I’d unfortuantely have to answer negatively.
The Christological disputes of the fifth century were essentially disputes between Alexandrian vs. Antiochene Christology; Cyrillian Christology was at the heart of such disputes, since St. Cyril was the central figure of an indisputably Orthodox Ecumenical Council. It was his Christology that was dogmatised; it was his Christology alone that constituted the Orthodox standard at the time.
One would think that if someone had a genuine interest in solving this dispute that they’d at least be familiar with the essential documents of the dispute at hand. Yet historical facts dictate that Leo of Rome had never even read St. Cyril's 12 chapters, which were dogmatically elevated at Ephesus 431, until after the Council of Chalcedon (i.e. well after he wrote the Tome).
I believe Leo’s concern was simply the naturally increasing reputation and power of the See of Alexandria, which he perceived as a threat to the reputation and power of his own See.
You will find that when Leo was first informed of the controversy surrounding Eutyches, that he didn’t care much for it; he even treated Eutyches with kindness. This attitude continued subsequent to Eutyches’ ex-communication at Constantinople 448. It was only after Ephesus 449 was convened i.e. after Alexandria came into play, that Leo started getting really into the dispute; his attitude towards Eutyches arbitrarily changed from one of kindness to one of hate. He even sided with (in fact worse – restored to Communion) a condemned heretic and well-known arch-enemy of St Cyril (Theodoret of Cyrus), simply for the sake of opposing the See of Alexandria.
However, his Tome was accused of having Nestorian tendencies.
The Tome was viewed quite unfavorably by the majority of the Orthodox world before the inception of Chalcedon. In fact, it is interesting to note that Juvenal of Jerusalem, before departing for Chalcedon, gathered his congregation and advised them to reject and resist him if he were to ever be dissuaded from the Orthodox stance against the Tome i.e. they all, at that stage, agreed that the tome was Nestorian in content. Juvenal did in fact change his mind at Chalcedon, and his congregation did in fact resist and reject him, which is why military force was required in Jerusalem.
At the Council of Chalcedon, the Tome was also initially viewed unfavorably by the clear majority of attendants. Afterwards, as is well known, Nestorius himself praised the tome as a vindication of his position.
Can the OO resistance to Chalcedon really be blamed for interpreting Nestorianism in this document?
It was only after investigating the document, and finding that it was in fact Orthodox, not Nestorian, that it was proclaimed "Peter speaks through the mouth of Leo" (or something to that effect, I forget the exact words).
That is true, but think about it though; the initial reaction to the Tome was quite strong (in the negative direction). If this document managed to elicit so much controversy and suspicion, why did certain Chalcedonian Fathers go out of their way to investigate it so thoroughly for the purpose of forcefully, yet hardly, squeezing some Orthodoxy into it, in order that it may be vindicated as an Orthodox standard of faith? Wouldn’t it just have been easier to reject it, and create a new document in its place, as Anatolius suggested? Indeed, that would have been the common sense response. But here is where Leo’s unorthodox ecclesiology comes into play; the Romans would not accept compromise; the tome had to be accepted,
in toto, else they would abandon the Council, as they had threatened. The tome was really only accepted through blackmail.
The imperial commissioners would not have the Romans abandon the Council, since this would contradict their own agenda to unify the Church under their city. Reading through the minutes, you can see the trickery employed in their rhetoric, which ultimately forced those with a truly Orthodox mindset (i.e. those who could not in all good consciousness submit to the Tome), to see if they could twist and turn this vague and prima facie Nestorian document to conform to some sort of an Orthodox interpretation, no matter how weak.
It was the duty of the Chalcedonian Fathers to put a stop to the agendas that were clearly being pushed forward (i.e. Leo’s self-perceived supremacy, and the Commissioners’ aim towards imperial unity); agendas which compromised the Faith and divided the Church.
P.S. I hope these discussions have not offended you, and we appreciate your general contribution to this forum thus far.
Comments
- Supremacy , that the Byzantines resent, was exercised at Chalcedon at its most complete picture. It puts the Bishop of Rome above the Church council, and therefore above the Church itself, to the degree that he can abrogate councils by his own will and does no answer to them.
Leo of Rome did just that. He accepted Theodret, a convicted heretic and one who remained a heretic till the end of his life, in communion and by that abrogated a whole council that till the time still stood as an official Church council. Chalcedon upheld his decisions and exonerated Thedoret and Ibas, never asking Leo of Rome about his very suspecious relation to an excommunicated man whose convictions are not hidden.
The official excommunication sentence against St. Dioscoros by Chalcedon was pronounced by Anatolios to be for adminiitrative error , not dogmatic, because St. Dioscoros excommunicated "his head" , who is Leo of Rome according to Anatolios, again elevating the Bishop of Rome to a level equal to Christ himself.
A council that accepts such decision defacto pronounces Roman Supremacy as dogma, even if they do not spell it out.
I, personally, would confidently assert that had Leo understood his position and the position of his See correctly within the framework of an Orthodox ecclesiology, there would never have been a Council of Chalcedon in the first place.
Al Mashi Kam!
Sorry it took me so long to return to this topic - I went away to Jerusalem for Pascha and completely forgot about this thread after I came back.
I don't quite understand how you arrive at such a conclusion when Leo was opposed to the Council being held in the first place. In fact, he wrote to the Emperor Marcian and "begged the Emperor to defer the holding of the synod" (Epistle ad Marcianum Augustum, S. Leo M. Ep. Ixxxiii.; P.L. liv. 920) Which is why, after the Tome had been carefully scrutinised the Fathers of Chalcedon proclaimed "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." Equally I would say that Alexandria's rejection to the Council was in part due to the increasing power of Constantinople. The first Ecumenical Council had proclaimed Alexandria as the see second in rank to Rome. The second Ecumenical Council moved Alexandria to third place after Constantinople when it became the new capital of the Empire.
The Council of Chalcedon went even further in proclaiming that ".. the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops [i.e. those of the 2nd Council], actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome"
Given the turbulent relations between the Copts and their Byzantine occupiers, I can see why such an assertion would cause conflict. The "robber-council" of Ephesus was a travesty, which was no doubt why he felt compelled to get involved. Many of the bishops were mistreated by the Alexandrian legates who shouted "hack asunder those who would divide Christ!" They were also given blank tablets on which they were forced to put their signatures, for obvious reasons. The majority signed without a murmur. A few desired to sign with certain reservations, but the tablets were torn from their hands, and their fingers were broken. This is true. In fact, at the 5th session they believed St Leo to have had Nestorian leanings and shouted, "The opponents are Nestorian, let them go to Rome." This clearly disproves the notion that the Chacedonian Fathers were St Leo's lapdogs who immediatly fell at his feet and accepted everything he said by virtue of him being the Pope of Rome.
Quite the contary. This was a Council called against the wishes of Leo, and which remained extremely sceptical to him until his Tome had been dilligently scrutinized. Only then, when they had come to the conclusion that "Leo and Cyril taught the same thing", did they accept him, which shows that it was Cyril's teachings, not Leo's, which were held to be the benchmark of faith also at Chalcedon. Nestorius also considered his false teachings to be that of the previous Fathers and the Scriptures, which is a claim St Cyril no doubt also made (in his case correctly) for his own teaching. So just because Nestorius interpreted the Tome according to his own blasphemous teachings doesn't mean the Tome was unorthodox. I can certainly understand why you reach such a conclusion, but I don't agree with it (which I'm sure you already guessed since I would have been OO otherwise) I would also like to say that I am just responding to these questions raised by Stavro and yourself and that I understand that this is a Coptic forum, I am a guest and would not under any other circumstances question your Church as these posts have forced me to do (although I hope I was fair and did not cause offence).
Pi-Khristos Aftonf! Khen O-methmi Aftonf! This is quite irrelevant. My conclusion is drawn upon the fact that the only reason Leo of Rome made an issue of Ephesus II (449) and the canonical actions of St. Dioscoros, was because he believed that this Council undermined his papal-supreme-like authority (it "robbed" him of this authority, hence the misnomer "robber synod"), and it was ultimately Leo’s issues with Ephesus II that consequently resulted in the convocation of another Council. It was thus because of him that a Council was called per se; the only thing Leo was opposed to was the idea of such a Council being held at Chalcedon rather than at Rome i.e. his beef was with the location of the Council and not the existence of a Council to deal with Ephesus II per se. Again, this itself is just another indication amongst many of his true political agenda. To the majority of your Fathers, nay the majority of the Orthodox world, the Tome was clearly heretical. I gave you the example of Juvenal of Jerasulem who made a pact with his congregation before his departure stating that if he were ever to submit to the Nestorian Tome, that they reject him as a heretic.
If this was the mindset that many of your Fathers adopted, what compelled them to strenuously try and squeeze any ounce of Cyrillian Orthodoxy into the Tome? Well, they simply buckled under Imperial pressure and pressure from Rome. Clearly if there was no pressure, the Tome would simply have been rejected, because to any sound minded person, it clearly conveyed Nestorian Christology. There is nothing Cyrillian about the Tome; its style, its phraseology, and its terminology were all employed by St Cyril’s Nestorian opponents and never by St Cyril himself. You don’t need to put it under a microscope to see that.
If you read the minutes of Chalcedon, you will find the Imperial Commissioners being smart with their words in their attempt to get your Fathers to accept the Tome one way or another, because at that point in time, the Roman legates threatened to abandon the Council all together if their Tome was not accepted unconditionally in toto. This would have been detrimental to the political agenda of the Commissioners, and hence they manipulated the situation in order to prevent that from happening.
Common sense should dictate that a truly Ecumenical Council concerned with the Orthodoxy and Unity of the Church, would only ever advocate and dogmatise unquestionably Orthodox works; works which clearly and explicitly and appropriately express the Orthodox Tradition of the Church. The Tome did none of that; the Tome was understood by many Orthodox to be opposed to the Tradition of the Church, and even your Fathers had this clear impression at first. Had it been entirely up to them, they most probably would have rejected it had they had the free chance to do so; unfortunately, they copped out, buckled under the pressure, and desparately tried to squeeze Cyrillian Orthodoxy where it did not fit. The above proclamation about Leo and St Cyril allegedly teaching the same thing is nothing but a cop-out; it is an attempt by the Chalcedonian Fathers to save themselves from the polemics that they anticipated would be validly launched by true Orthodox faithful who understood that there was nothing in common between Leo and St Cyril. This is a mere claim that is not borne out by any evidence whatsoever. Your Council falsely ex-communicated our Patriarch! It’s not like Chalcedon merely lowered the honor of St Dioscoros’ See; it falsely ex-communicated and exiled him – a move that was ironically motivated by the very agenda realised in the 22nd Canon of Chalcedon! The mistreatment of the Holy Council of Ephesus II was the travesty. The Council was Orthodox, Canonical, and justified, and none of the lies promoted against this council have been borne out by any evidence whatsoever. Chalcedon failed to properly investigate, and consequently overturned its decisions which paved the way for a large Crypto-Nestorian Theodorian movement. Ironically, your next Council - Constantinople 533 - ratified the decisions of Ephesus 449 when it condemned the Three Chapters. The problem with many of the so-called historians who have produced works on or relating to Chalcedon (a problem that has thankfully recently been overcome), is that they tend take the historical-polemical claims of Chalcedonians as being representative of historical truth, without objectively seeking to ascertain whether or not such claims are in fact accurate or not. A prime example of this concerns the “monophysite” misnomer that was recently popular amongst historians in their references to the Oriental Orthodox Church (this title is thankfully now being abandoned in the theological language of modern scholarship).
This lie, that the OO Church is, or ever was, “monophysite” or “Eutychian” was the result of historians appealing to the false polemical claims of the Imperial Church at face value, as historically accurate claims. They thus presented us to the world as the Church that denied the humanity of Christ, not because they found any evidence of this heresy in OO theological works, but merely because Chalcedonians “said so” – truly poor scholarship. Fortunately, this lie has been debunked in many recent works on Chalcedon, and the Orthodoxy of the Oriental Orthodox Church from the days of St Dioscoros till the days of St Severos and even till now, has had due justice served.
The reason I bring this up in response to your “blank paper” comment, is because we are dealing with more or less the same issue here. Throughout history The Holy Council of Ephesus II has been slandered and blasphemed, all upon the basis of false polemical Chalcedonian claims being taken at their face value as historically true. The evidence could not be further from the truth. In fact an objective investigation of the evidence in fact renders the claim of the blank papers a blatant lie:
Stephen of Ephesus was one such proponent of the charge of the blank papers. Upon investigation of his testimony, we find that he is inconsistent in his claims. The first of Stephen’s stories alleged that followers of St Dioscorus had visited him at his residence, and did not let him leave the church until he recorded the decrees made by St ‘Dioscorus, Juvenal, Thalassius and the other bishops’. An interesting thing to note relating to Stephen’s credibility in the first place is the accusation brought against him at Chalcedon later on (Oct. 29th), concerning his plot against Basanius of Ephesus which consequently got him arrested such that Stephen could secure the See for himself. The council consequently deposed both Stephen and Basanius. Given his history of deception [In his Patristic Studies (173), Honigman refers to the story of how Stephen had concocted the legend of the seven sleepers in order to divert people’s attention from his crime and avoid detection ], suspicion against the credibility of an already inconsistent testimony, is more than reasonable.
A more striking claim also suggesting the fallacy of the claims made by Stephen of Ephesus, concerning Theodore of Claudiopolis’ statement that everything reported at Ephesus was performed by St Dioscorus, Juvenal and the early signatories. This implicitly contradicts Stephen’s denial of ever agreeing to and consequently signing the decrees of Ephesus 449 when one considers that Stephen himself can reasonably be considered one of these “early signatories.” [Stephen was one of the leading men at the council of 449, occupying the sixth place among the delegates. Regarding the decision to read the minutes of 448 before presenting the Tome of Leo, he was the second speaker after Juvenal (ACO. II, I, page 97); of acquitting Eutyches, he was the third speaker after Juvenal (ibid , page 182) of condemning Flavian and Eusebius, he was the fifth speaker after Juvenal (ibid., page 192). On all these occasions Juvenal had in fact spoken first. Stephen was the fourth—in the order of Dioscorus, Juvenal, Domnus and Stephen— to sign the decisions of the council at the close of the first session (ibid.,pages194 1067).] Furthermore, Theodore’s claim that St Dioscorus and “his party” conducted private meetings at which Theodore and others were not present, only to be handed blank papers by St Dioscorus and Juvenal themselves , simply challenges common sense which dictates that had the whole blank paper plan actually been enacted, that St Dioscorus and Juvenal would have employed other identities to extend the blank papers to Theodore and company, as opposed to extending it to them personally as if to expose themselves so stupidly.
In responding to the very principle of this claim, the Egyptian priests cried out saying: “A soldier of Christ fears no worldly power; light a fire and we will show you how martyrs can die.” St Dioscorus quietly added that, “It would have been more compatible with a bishop’s dignity to refuse signing what he knows not specifically when it is that which concerns the majesty of the Faith”.
The subject was then diverted but later revisited when the continued reading of the minutes of Ephesus 449 revealed that those present believed the theological basis of the council to be that of the fathers. (Samuel, Fr. V.C., op. cit., page 45) The Oriental Bishops then realizing the untenability of their claims against the council, the minutes of which reveal was once upheld by them, claimed that such a statement was later recorded on the blank papers. “‘Everyone wrote with the help of his notary’, answered Dioscorus. Juvenal also confirmed the words of the patriarch, and added that his secretaries took down the minutes with the others. Take the report of Juvenal’s notary, said Dioscorus, or that of Thalassius, or for that matter of the bishop of Corinth, and see whether theirs is a copy of my minutes.” (Samuel, Fr. V.C., op. cit., page 45) In contradiction to his original testimony that the false records were a result of St Dioscorus writing on signed blank papers, Stephen of Ephesus in an attempting to counter the common sense objection of St Dioscorus to the claim of the Oriental Bishops, asserts that St Dioscorus in fact had his secretaries coerce the notaries of the other bishops to write what was written by them. (ACO, II, I, pages 87-88 130-32) “All these allegations were answered by Dioscorus.” (Samuel, Fr. V.C., op. cit., page 46) “Let the account in the possession of Stephen himself be read”, he said, “to see whether I forced him to copy anything” (ACO. ii, i. p. 88: 33.). But no one responded to him.
Even assuming any truth to the story of the blank papers for arguments sake, the fact remains that those who asserted it (Stephen of Ephesus and Theodore) had claimed that St Dioscorus carried out this crime with the participation of others, hence contradicting the position of the Roman legates and Eusebius of Dorylaeum who attempted to place full responsibility for any alleged error or crime committed at Ephesus 449 on St Dioscorus alone.
Furthermore, “Eusebius of Dorylaeum was present at the council of 449. But in his petition read to the council of 451 on 8 October, which in all probability was the same as his appeal to emperor Theodosius II soon after the council of 449, he did not mention the story of the blank papers, although he noted it as an incident which had actually happened in his second petition submitted on 13 October. Is it, then, that the man who should be an eyewitness to the alleged story had to wait for over two years to hear it for the first time on 8 October 451 from the men who had signed the Tome of Leo and agreed to support it?” (Samuel, Fr. V.C., op. cit., page 46)
In ridiculing their consistent denial of those present at Ephesus 449 regarding the fact they had willingly stated all that was read in the minutes of the Council, St Dioscorus responded: "They want to deny all that is confessed to be the fact…let them next say they were not there." (Wace, H., op. cit.)
Later on in the proceedings when the case of Flavian’s excommunication was being discussed, the oriental party who had accused St Dioscorus of having collected blank papers with their signatures, and hence attempting to relieve themselves of responsibility for any of the decrees of Ephesus 449 including that of Flavian’s excommunication, had followed up the matter crying, ‘we all have sinned, we ask for pardon’ (ACO, ii, I, page 94:181). In response, the commissioners then asked, ‘Did you not complain that you had been forced to sign on blank papers the excommunication of Flavian?’(ACO, ii, I, page 94:182) In answer they repeated the words, ‘We all have sinned; we ask for pardon’ (ACO, ii, I, page 94:183) Thus they apologized both for agreeing to excommunicate Flavian and for fabricating the story of the blank papers.
Regardless of the efforts of the Roman legates, Eusebius of Dorylaeum and the Oriental Bishops to exclude St Dioscorus as solely responsible for the decisions of Ephesus 449, the initial verdict of the commissioners admitted to the Conciliarly nature of the decisions made, hence calling for the deposition of all the leading figure of Ephesus 449. First of all, even assuming purely for arguments sake that people at Ephesus II were mistreated, you have to bear in mind that the only one on trial at Chalcedon was St Dioscoros. So even assuming the truth of this claim (which I will later argue against in any event), you still have not justified the ex-communication of St Dioscoros.
Trevor Gervasse Jalland’s evaluation of the second council of Ephesus is worth noting (The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great, (S. P.C. K., l941) pages 252-253). He admits that “most of our evidence regarding the council and its proceedings is from prejudiced sources”, and that although “Leo lays the chief blame for its misdeeds on Dioscorus…it is more than doubtful how far he was really responsible.” The real conduct of the council’s proceedings were in the hands of the imperial commissioners.
Jalland further remarks concerning the Chalcedonian charge of tumultuous behaviour at Ephesus 449, that Chalcedon was no exception (A similar view is expressed by Honigman also about the council of 449. See Juvenal of Jerusalem, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, No. 5, Harvard University Press, 1950, p. 236). According to the Coptic Synaxarium, the blessed St Dioscorus was smitten at Chalcedon; he was struck on his mouth, and the hairs of his beard were plucked out. He took the hair and the teeth that were knocked out and sent them to Alexandria saying, "This is the fruit of Faith."
There is simply no reliable evidence of this alleged violence or aggressiveness. Any evidence we have in fact suggests the opposite. For example, despite St Dioscorus’ resistance to that blasphemous Tome of Leo, he nonetheless adopted a very friendly stance towards Leo of Rome, who was described at Ephesus 449 as a “lover of God”; Domnus of Antioch was titled “lover of God” as well. When Leo of Rome requested that the emperor of the West Valentinus, his mother, and his sister Pulcheria, intercede before Emperor Theodosius II in order that another council may be summoned, Emperor Theodosius responded with a letter praising the Council of Ephesus and stating that it was “controlled by the fear of God.” He also declared that he had himself examined the council and found it satisfactory, and asserted that “the members held fast to the true faith and the Fathers’ canons.”
The only violence in fact noted by Emperor Theodosius II was that of the Nestorians, which is why Emperor Theodosius II prevented the attendance of Theodoret of Cyrus because of the pains that believers – even in the villages – suffered from the Nestorians. Eutyches in his appeal to the Bishops, also revealed the violent nature of the Nestorians, asserting “that during the trial he had expressly stated that he was ready to follow what these should determine, but that Flavian had refused to accept this appeal; and he protested against the violence with which he had been treated both at the Synod and afterwards by the populace.” (Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, page. 70)
Any reliable evidence available to us in fact suggests that this alleged aggressiveness was the very opposite of St Dioscorus’ character and person. For example, in rebuking Domnus of Antioch’s encouragement of Theodoret of Cyrhus, Domnus is said to have responded to St Dioscorus by “telling him that he enjoyed his letter because of his love and openness.” (Mar Sawirius Yacoub Thomas, Damascus and its Connections for the Syrian Orthodox: The History of the Syrian Antiochene Church, Vol. 2, page 15) Even Theodoret himself, “whose testimony in [St Dioscorus’] favour cannot be suspected, declared in a letter to Dioscorus, soon after his consecration, that the fame of his virtues, and particularly of his modesty and humility, was widely spread (Ep. 60)” (Wace, H, in the article to which I am responding.) J. Neale offers a balanced depiction of St Dioscorus, as a “man of excellent disposition and much beloved for his humility. These virtues were adorned with his fiery zeal for the faith and his presence of mind” (History of the Holy Eastern Church, Vol. 1, page 278, 301). This argument does not hold water by virtue of the fact that the nature of Christ i.e. the relationship between His divinity and humanity with respect to His hypostasis/person was not an issue of primary concern in either the Scriptures or the pre-Ephesian Fathers. Sure, there may have been indications in their writings supporting the Orthodox Ephesian Christology that was eventually vindicated, but that such writings were prone to misinterpretation is understandeable since Nestorianism was a non-existent heresy back then; it was not an issue of concern.
What is not understandeable is that Nestorius a heretic that was officially condemned by the standards of Ephesus 431 (i.e. a Council that directly dealt with, and handled the Nestorian heresy), “misunderstood” the Tome. The obvious reason that his interpretation of the Tome cannot be dismissed as his own fault rather than the fault of Leo is because at that specific point in time Orthodox Christology was already explicitly and clearly defined by Ephesus. Nestorius perfectly understood what Orthodox Ephesian Christology entailed, he simply disagreed with it; he certainly could not conform his Christology with it, hence the reason he was ex-communicated. Yet he nonetheless managed to conform the Tome with his Nestorianism; what he could not do with St Cyril’s writings, he could do with Leo’s; that is because they were evidently of a very different nature.