Conciliarism vs universal Papal jurisdiction + Ecumenical council...?

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi

Quick question: why say that Peter has spoken through Leo? Peter had been gone for some time so what’s the significance of them using his name?

Because of the association of Rome with Peter. I don’t really think it has anything to do with any sort of Petrine ministry, just the association of Rome with Peter (endowed with the dignity of Peter, as the papal legates put it), which along with martyrdom of Paul and the status of Rome as the central city of the Empire and known world at that time granted the dignity of primacy upon the Archbishop of Rome.

Why the need for Cyril to even seek validation from Pope Celestine I, who then of course authorized Cyril to request that Nestorius recant his position or face excommunication? Why not just take matters into his own hands or better yet, refer the matter to an ecumenical council?

It is always good to do something with the consent of your fellow bishops. Collegiality is a concept that works even on the level of primates (and at this time, only three had been established canonically: Alexandria, Antioch and Rome), so it’s no Surprise that St. Cyril would have tried to seek Rome’s approval and support in order to oppose Nestorius in Constantinople who was himself supported by John of Antioch.

 

[joe370]

Cavaradossi;8542473]Because of the association of Rome with Peter. I don’t really think it has anything to do with any sort of Petrine ministry, just the association of Rome with Peter (endowed with the dignity of Peter, as the papal legates put it), which along with martyrdom of Paul and the status of Rome as the central city of the Empire and known world at that time granted the dignity of primacy upon the Archbishop of Rome.

It is always good to do something with the consent of your fellow bishops. Collegiality is a concept that works even on the level of primates (and at this time, only three had been established canonically: Alexandria, Antioch and Rome), so it’s no Surprise that St. Cyril would have tried to seek Rome’s approval and support in order to oppose Nestorius in Constantinople who was himself supported by John of Antioch.

I understand your position now; thanks for the feedback brother.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

Like I said, this was a civilization that called the librarian of the Library of Alexandria the ‘Universal Librarian’ and called the Patriarch of Alexandria ‘The Thirteenth Apostle’ and ‘The Judge of the Universe’. I think we have to take passages like that with a grain of salt, and look at the context of what’s happening around it.

I believe the fact that the statement “Peter has spoken through…” came from an Ecumenical Council has more theological relevance than a self-proclamation from a local Church or an aphorism regarding a secular librarian (the library at Alexandria was the greatest library of its time, after all). And don’t forget that the statement “Peter has spoken through…” was repeated by more than one Ecumenical Council in reference to the bishop of Rome.

It’s clear from the Acts of Chalcedon that the Tome of Leo was neither universally well-received at the council (it met with much opposition from the Illyrians, Palestinians and Egyptians), nor was it being read as if it were authoritative. An entire session of Chalcedon (session IV) was dedicated to the bishops voting on whether or not the Tome of Leo represented the faith (of course, by this point in the council, it had already been decided that the Tome of Leo represented the Orthodox faith by all of the bishops present but the Egyptians, so it was more of a formality). One has to ask why the Tome would have needed to be approved by the council if it were authoritative in itself.

It did not need approval by the Council. Those many bishops who had already read it BEFORE the Council already accepted its orthodoxy. It is just a plain fact that not all the bishops who had gathered at the Council had read the Tome. As JUDGES, they certainly had every right to know its contents before they acceded to it. And we know their response was positive. (notwithstanding the understandable refusal of the Egyptian bishops, of course). You also have to understand that the Tome was originally written in Latin, so when it was read in translation, its contents may not have been immediately understandable to the bishops.

Where do you get the idea that a dogmatic decree by a Pope must be accepted by every Catholic (even more, a bishop) without him/herself studying it diligently and finally accepting it in good conscience?

I think the great difference between our approaches here is that the Catholic posters are fixated on what the bishops said, while I am presenting what the council actually did, which tells a somewhat different story.

Well, I don’t think it tells a different story so much as that you are attaching a certain relevance to a certain fact (i.e., that certain bishops wanted to know its contents before acceding to it) that the fact does not deserve.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Because of the association of Rome with Peter. I don’t really think it has anything to do with any sort of Petrine ministry, just the association of Rome with Peter (endowed with the dignity of Peter, as the papal legates put it), which along with martyrdom of Paul and the status of Rome as the central city of the Empire and known world at that time granted the dignity of primacy upon the Archbishop of Rome.

I can understand the “connection with Peter” and the “martyrdom of Paul” part, but I don’t have a clue how you can claim that his primacy was still based on the status of Rome as the central city of the Empire when the capital of the Empire had already been moved to Constantinople.

It is always good to do something with the consent of your fellow bishops. Collegiality is a concept that works even on the level of primates (and at this time, only three had been established canonically: Alexandria, Antioch and Rome), so it’s no Surprise that St. Cyril would have tried to seek Rome’s approval and support in order to oppose Nestorius in Constantinople who was himself supported by John of Antioch.

That might be relevant, if not for the fact that John of Antioch was not even involved in the debate until several months after Pope St. Cyril had made his appeal to Pope St. Celestine. However, I do appreciate your point on collegiality.

Here is something I wrote in a past thread, which might interest you:

Mardukm:

I’ll give you an example from one of Pope St. Cyril’s letters to Pope St. Celestine regarding Nestorius: “We have not confidently abstained from communion with Nestorius before informing you of this; condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment that we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him who chersishes such erroneous doctrine.” You can see here that Pope St. Cyril did not feel competent by himself to act against Nestorius without the confirmation of his elder brother in Rome, Pope St. Celestine.

I would submit that brother Gabrielof12’s terse relation of the events surrounding Pope St. Cyril, Pope St. Celestine and Nestorius seems a bit one-sided (though that may only be a symptom of the nature of debate, and not intended by brother Gabriel). He does make it seem as though Pope St. Celestine is just ordering Pope St. Cyril around. The actual case is that this was a joint effort by Popes St. Cyril and Celestine. Pope St. Cyril was conceding to the primacy (or supremacy) of Pope St. Celestine, though not out of legal obligation, but out of love and respect for his elder brother. The thing on their minds was not “who is greater than whom?” but rather “how can we work together (St. Cyril with the exercise of his local primacy (or supremacy), and St. Celestine with the exercise of his universal primacy (or supremacy), for the benefit of the Church?” I believe Absolutist Petrine advocates in the Latin Catholic Church and Low Petrine advocates in the Eastern Orthodox Church are both equally stuck on the legalisms of jurisdiction, and cannot get beyond that issue to imagine how the head and body can work together as one, and always together as one, for the upbuilding of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[joe370]

Cavaradossi, the synod of Sardica was called to address certain doctrinal difficulties such as the Arian controversy. Why the need to write to the bishop of Rome? Why not convoke via ecumenical council instead of writing to the bishop of Rome, and then proceed with the judgment?

Council of Sardica

"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi, the synod of Sardica was called to address certain doctrinal difficulties such as the Arian controversy. Why the need to write to the bishop of Rome? Why not convoke via ecumenical council instead of writing to the bishop of Rome, and then proceed with the judgment?

Council of Sardica

“f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

That is not disputed by the Orthodox. This is viewed as being one of the traditional prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome, to act as a mediator. Notice, however, that it says nothing about the Bishop of Rome being able to make his own ruling. His authority is limited to ordering that a case be retried by the bishops of a neighboring province, if he believes that the original judgment was in error.

 

[joe370]

That is not disputed by the Orthodox. This is viewed as being one of the traditional prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome, to act as a mediator. Notice, however, that it says nothing about the Bishop of Rome being able to make his own ruling. His authority is limited to ordering that a case be retried by the bishops of a neighboring province, if he believes that the original judgment was in error.

Makes sense, but it seems to me, if conciliarism was the intended method in which disputes and differences were settled as opposed to universal papal jurisdiction + ecumenical council, then why even care what one bishop thinks? Why did the bishop of Rome possess any prerogatives at all? Or, was it common for bishops during a council to write to other major bishoprics as well, in places like Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem or Constantinople? I guess what I am wondering is: Were there other bishops, other than the bishop of Rome, that also possessed unique prerogatives? If so could you give me a few examples?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Makes sense, but it seems to me, if conciliarism was the intended method in which disputes and differences were settled as opposed to universal papal jurisdiction + ecumenical council, then why even care what one bishop thinks? Why did the bishop of Rome possess any prerogatives at all? Or, was it common for bishops during a council to write to other major bishoprics as well, in places like Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem or Constantinople? I guess what I am wondering is: Were there other bishops, other than the bishop of Rome, that also possessed unique prerogatives? If so could you give me a few examples?

That prerogative was only given to the Bishop of Rome, from what I’ve read.

To answer your other question, it was actually common for people to write other bishoprics looking for support. Some even wrote to other bishops in the West besides Rome.

 

[joe370]

That prerogative was only given to the Bishop of Rome, from what I’ve read.

To answer your other question, it was actually common for people to write other bishoprics looking for support. Some even wrote to other bishops in the West besides Rome.

Could you maybe provide some examples where other bishops influenced councils?

 

[joe370]

Cavaradossi, hypothetical regarding the fact that the eastern fathers of an ecumenical accepted the doctrinal definition of the hypostatic union with the acclamation, ‘Peter has spoken through Leo’:

If those eastern fathers would have went in the opposite direction regarding the hypostatic union, and the bishop of Rome had disagreed (of course he would have) - do you think those eastern fathers would have submitted and accepted Leo’s decision?

 

[joe370]

Cavaradossi, is the following an accurate assessment in your opinion:

Eutyches (Byzantine monk) - argued that Jesus’ human nature ceased to be which gave way to the heresy of Monophysitism, and it spread throughout the eastern church, forcing Flavian (patriarch of Constantinople) - to call a local synod to condemn it and as history shows, Eutyches refused to submit to the synod, appealing his case to Pope Leo I. He wrote:

“I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. …I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith.”

Response to Eutyches:

"We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. – Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25

And of course Eutyche would not submit and the eastern emperor supported Eutyches’ stance. Eutyche then persuaded the emperor to call another council in Ephesus (“Robber Council”) - in which Rome was ignored and Monophysitism declared to be the orthodox doctrine of the Church. At this same council several other eastern bishops, such as Theodoret of Cyrus and Eusebius of Doryleum were deposed from their sees for refusing to embrace Monophysitism and they too appealed to Leo, saying:

*We hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles. -- Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep 113*

*The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion. -- Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo

Flavian also appeals to Leo:

*“When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference…but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound.”
*
Pope Leo then manages to get the emperor to call the Council of Chalcedon, comprised of basically all eastern bishops and Leo’s Tome against Monophysitism, and for the orthodox teaching of the two natures of Christ is read and embraced with the following pronouncement:

*“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’” *

It ends with the council fathers recognizing Pope Leo as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church, by saying, via letter:

*You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
*
For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him …Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

*Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

*Also we see the recognition that Peter, as per Matthew 16, is the rock on which Jesus’ church is built:

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." Acts of Chalcedon

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi, is the following an accurate assessment in your opinion:

Eutyches (Byzantine monk) - argued that Jesus’ human nature ceased to be which gave way to the heresy of Monophysitism, and it spread throughout the eastern church, forcing Flavian (patriarch of Constantinople) - to call a local synod to condemn it and as history shows, Eutyches refused to submit to the synod, appealing his case to Pope Leo I. He wrote:

“I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. …I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith.”

Response to Eutyches:

"We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. – Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25

And of course Eutyche would not submit and the eastern emperor supported Eutyches’ stance. Eutyche then persuaded the emperor to call another council in Ephesus (“Robber Council”) - in which Rome was ignored and Monophysitism declared to be the orthodox doctrine of the Church.

I think it is a little more complicated than that. Ephesus II was conducted with all sort of irregularities. However, I don’t believe Ephesus II ever approved of what we call the heresy of monophysitism (that is, the heresy in which the divinity of Christ swallows up his humanity, making Him somehow less than fully human). What Ephesus II did was to absolve Eutyches, and to condemn Flavian, Theodoret and Domnus of Antioch.

The conflict first started with Eutyches, who in his attempt to combat Nestorius carelessly went too far, and taught that the Natures of Christ were fused into a single nature. This language easily led to the heresy that due to this fusion of natures, Christ’s humanity was swallowed up by His divinity (what we call monophysitism). Upon examining the teachings of Eutyches, Domnus of Antioch and Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, accused him of heresy. He was tried in Constantinople in a synod led by Flavian of Constantinople, and he was deposed. After his deposition, he wrote to Leo, asking for him to overturn the ruling (and presumably order a retrial, as was his right according to canon 3 of Sardica, which you quoted earlier), but as you have shown, Leo refused, as he believed Eutyches’ deposition to be a just act.

Without the support of the pope, Eutyches had but only one other option to have his deposition overturned. He appealed to the emperor to convene a synod to overturn the synod’s (led by Flavian) decision. Theodosius II, agreed to call, against pope Leo’s will, an ecumenical synod in order to investigate whether Eutyches was deposed justly. At the Synod, Dioscoros was appointed to preside. Dioscoros, either out of a legitimate belief that Eutyches was innocent or out of other more political motives essentially conducted the council in a very irregular fashion in order to have Eutyches exonerated and his accusers (Flavian, Domnus and Eusebius). The accusations against Dioscoros which later came up at Chalcedon included not allowing the Leo’s letter to the ecumenical synod to be read, and the use of violence in order to coerce bishops into voting in Eutyches’ favor.

It is important to note that this wasn’t really done ‘ignoring Rome,’ as, although Leo opposed the calling of Ephesus II, he actually consented to Emperor Theodosius’ wishes, and sent legates to attend Ephesus II in his place, which is also why there is a Letter from Leo to the Council of Ephesus II (the Letter which Dioscoros refused to allow to be read). When Ephesus II had concluded, the Council wrote to the Emperor, who confirmed it, and Dioscoros sent out an encyclical through all of the East demanding that all of the Eastern bishops sign it. As the Bishops of Antioch and Constantinople had just been Deposed at Ephesus II, Dioscoros, aided by an alliance with Juvenal of Jerusalem (who had his own motivations, as he wanted to elevate Jerusalem to a patriarchate; oddly, he later got his wish, but at Chalcedon) had essentially managed to eliminate all of his competition at the patriarchal level in the East. He ran into problems, however, when Juvenal convened a small synod and excommunicated Pope Leo, and Pope Leo refused to approve of Ephesus II.

 

[Cavaradossi]

At this same council several other eastern bishops, such as Theodoret of Cyrus and Eusebius of Doryleum were deposed from their sees for refusing to embrace Monophysitism and they too appealed to Leo, saying:

*We hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles. -- Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep 113*

*The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion. -- Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo

Flavian also appeals to Leo:

"When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference…but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound."

Pope Leo then manages to get the emperor to call the Council of Chalcedon, comprised of basically all eastern bishops and Leo’s Tome against Monophysitism, and for the orthodox teaching of the two natures of Christ is read and embraced with the following pronouncement:

*“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’” *

The situation after Ephesus II, as you might expect, was a huge mess. Christendom had basically been torn apart along the lines of accepting or rejecting Ephesus II. Theodosius II, who had called Ephesus II died in 450 (a year after Ephesus II), and his successor, Marcian, was left with an empire which had been divided over this council. It was in this situation that Marcian called Chalcedon. However, I have to point out that Pope Leo, actually did not convince Marcian to convene Chalcedon; much to the contrary, from what I can gather, it seems that although Pope Leo was supportive of Marcian’s efforts to restore the “peace of the church” (Pope Leo’s own words), he was at the same time opposed to Chalcedon being called, preferring that it should be called at a later date (I’ll provide their correspondences to illustrate this).

 

[Cavaradossi]

It ends with the council fathers recognizing Pope Leo as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church, by saying, via letter:

You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him …Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

Also we see the recognition that Peter, as per Matthew 16, is the rock on which Jesus’ church is built:

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.” Acts of Chalcedon

I think this is where our interpretations of the events will differ somewhat more radically. Each of these quotes bears great weight, and I will tackle them each by providing some context in subsequent posts.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Now to provide some context for Chalcedon. Here is Marcian’s first letter to Leo:

The victors Valentinian and Marcian, glorious and triumphant, always Augusti, to Leo, the most devout archbishop of the glorious city of Rome. To this most great sovereignty I have come by God’s providence and by the election of the most excellent senate and of the entire army. Therefore, on behalf of the venerable and catholic religion of the Christian faith, by the help of which we trust that the strength of our power will be directed, we believe it to be proper that your holiness, possessing primacy in the episcopate of the divine faith, be first addressed by our sacred letters, urging and requesting your holiness to entreat the eternal deity on behalf of the stability and state of our rule, so that we should have such a purpose and a desire that, by the removal of every impious error through holding a council on your authority, perfect peace should be established among all the bishops of the catholic faith, existing unsullied and unstained by any wickedness. Issued at Constantinople, in the consulship of the lord Valentinian perpetual Augustus for the seventh time and of the most illustrious Avienus.

The important line here is “holding a council on your authority,” by which Marcian means that he wishes for Pope Leo to consent to him holding an Ecumenical Council in the East in order to fix the deadlock which was created in the wake of Ephesus II. After Ephesus II, Leo had pressed Theodosius to allow him to preside over an Ecumenical Council in the West. Marcian was proposing that a council be held in the East, but under the nominal authority (and presidency) of pope Leo.

And here is Marcian’s second letter to Pope Leo:

Marcian to Leo, the most devout bishop of the church of the most glorious
city of Rome:

Your holiness can be confident about our zeal and prayer, since we wish the true Christian religion and the apostolic faith to remain firm and be preserved with a pious mind by all people; indeed we are in no doubt that the solicitude of our power depends on correct religion and propitiating our Saviour. Therefore the most devout men, whom your holiness has sent to our piety, we have received willingly and, as was fitting, with a grateful heart. It remains that, if it should please your beatitude to come to these parts and hold a council, you should deign to do this through love of religion; your holiness will certainly satisfy our desires and will decree what is useful for sacred religion. But if it is burdensome for you to come to these parts, may your holiness make this clear to us in your own letter, with the result that our sacred letters may be sent to all the east and to Thrace and Illyricum, that all the most holy bishops should assemble in a certain specified place, according to our pleasure, and declare by their own statements what may benefit the Christian religion and the catholic faith, as your holiness has defined in accordance with the ecclesiastical canons.

In this letter, Marcian is making it quite clear that he intends to hold a council in the East, regardless of whether Pope Leo will be able to intend. He invites him, however, to come attend and preside over the council should he be able to do so.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here is Pope Leo’s response to Marcian:

Leo to Marcian Augustus.

Although I replied earlier to your piety through the clergy of Constantinople, yet on receiving the letter of your clemency through that illustrious man the prefect of the city my son Tatian, I found great cause for thanksgiving, because I have learnt that you are most eager for the peace of the church. The deserved and equitable fruit of this holy desire is that you should enjoy the same condition in your kingdom that you desire for religion. For when the Spirit of God confirms concord among Christian princes, confidence is doubly strengthened throughout the whole world, because the increase of love and faith makes the military power of each invincible, since the result of God’s being appeased by a single confession is that the falsity of heretics and the enmity of barbarians are equally overthrown, most glorious one. Since, therefore, the hope of heavenly assistance has been increased by friendship between the emperors, I venture with greater confidence to stir up your piety on behalf of the mystery of man’s salvation, lest you allow the importunate and impudent ingenuity of anyone to inquire into what must be held as if the matter were uncertain, and lest (although dissent even in a single word from the teaching of the gospels and apostles is forbidden, as is any opinion on holy scripture that differs from what the blessed apostles and our fathers learnt and taught) now at length illiterate and impious questions be raised, which formerly, as soon as the devil stirred them up through hearts attuned to him, were extinguished by the Holy Spirit through the disciples of the truth.

It is, however, most unjust that through the folly of a few we should be called back to conjectural opinions and the warfare of sinful disputes, as if deliberation were necessary, with a renewal of contention, as to whether Eutyches held impious opinions and whether a wrong judgement was delivered by Dioscorus, who in condemning Flavian of holy memory laid himself low and drove some of the more naive headlong to the same destruction. Now that many of them, as we have learnt, have had recourse to the remedy of reparation and are entreating forgiveness for their wavering trepidation, there is need to deliberate not over what form of faith should be embraced, but whose petitions should be granted and on what terms. Therefore, by means of the delegation which (God granting) will reach your clemency speedily, whatever I judge pertinent to the interests of the case will be more fully and opportunely put to that most pious solicitude which you deign to feel over the convening of a council.

Issued on the ninth day before the Kalends of May in the consulship of the most illustrious Adelfius.

In this letter, Pope Leo makes clear his opposition to the idea of holding an Ecumenical Council in the East (“It is, however, most unjust that through the folly of a few we should be called back to conjectural opinions and the warfare of sinful disputes”). It seems that Pope Leo believed that the issue could be solved on his authority alone. Marcian, however, did not share this view, as we can gather, because he proceeded to summon the Bishops for an Ecumenical Council, even after Pope Leo objected.

 

[Cavaradossi]

In response to Marcian’s call for a council, Leo wrote in response, asking that he postpone the council because of war in the West. He gives, however, his approval for a council to be held if that is what Marcian wishes, and instructs that Paschasinus, Boniface and Julian be allowed to represent him should the Emperor decide not to postpone the council (which is exactly what happened).

Leo to Marcian Augustus.

We believed that your clemency could grant our desire that in view of the present crisis you should order the priestly synod to be postponed till a more opportune time, so that, with priests being summoned from all the provinces, there could truly be an ecumenical council. But because out of love for the catholic faith you have resolved that the convocation should occur now, lest I should appear to oppose your pious decision, I have sent my brother and fellow bishop Paschasinus, summoned from that province which seems to be safer, who can represent my presence. I have attached to him Boniface my brother and fellow presbyter, and added those whom we sent before, including as their colleague also my brother Bishop Julian. We believe that with the help of God these men will transact every matter with such moderating influence that, through the curbing of all dissension, whatever led to complaint and commotion will be restored to the unity of peace and faith, and that no trace of either the Nestorian or Eutychian impiety shall be left in the hearts of any priests, since the catholic faith, which, with the Holy Spirit instructing us, we learnt from the blessed apostles through the holy fathers and also teach, lets neither of these errors infect it, most glorious one. If therefore there is anything in the way of diseases or wounds that can be healed through sincere amendment, we wish that it might be restored to true health. This amendment will not then be at all dubious, nor will it subsequently harm the simplicity of anyone, if it has not wished to cloak itself with any excuses, since the eradication of sin is obtained only by true confession. 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. For I am confident that those to whom we have entrusted this will labour there without animosity or partisanship to ensure that with the destruction only of heretical impiety truth and charity will reign in all the churches of God.

Issued on the eighth day before the Kalends of July in the consulship of
the most illustrious Adelfius.

As it’s getting rather late, I’m going to leave it at that tonight. I’ll get to those quotes (many of which are quite interesting) sometime tomorrow, hopefully.

 

[joe370]

The situation after Ephesus II, as you might expect, was a huge mess. Christendom had basically been torn apart along the lines of accepting or rejecting Ephesus II. Theodosius II, who had called Ephesus II died in 450 (a year after Ephesus II), and his successor, Marcian, was left with an empire which had been divided over this council. It was in this situation that Marcian called Chalcedon. However, I have to point out that Pope Leo, actually did not convince Marcian to convene Chalcedon; much to the contrary, from what I can gather, it seems that although Pope Leo was supportive of Marcian’s efforts to restore the “peace of the church” (Pope Leo’s own words), he was at the same time opposed to Chalcedon being called, preferring that it should be called at a later date (I’ll provide their correspondences to illustrate this).

Leo did not rebuke the Ephesus debacle and did not convince Marcian to convoke a new council at Chalcedon? I guess I will do a little more research…

AndEutyches did not embrace monophysitism or something similar to it?

Why would Flavian, Theodoret and Eusebius, appeal to Leo? Why not resolve the dispute ecumenically, via council and leave the opinion of one bishop out of the matter?

We hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles. – Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep 113

The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion. – Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo

“When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference…but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound.” Flavian

By the way, thanks for all the feedback…

 

[Cavaradossi]

Leo did not rebuke the Ephesus debacle and did not convince Marcian to convoke a new council at Chalcedon? I guess I will do a little more research…

They’re dense reading, but check out the correspondences between Leo and Marcian. Leo wanted to convene a council in the West, but Marcian would have none of it. Later, we see Leo asking Marcian if holding a council was really necessary, to which Marcian replied by summoning the bishops of the empire to participate in Chalcedon.

AndEutyches did not embrace monophysitism or something similar to it?

I think it’s clear that Eutyches was a heretic. What us not clear is whether Ephesus II made Eutyches’ beliefs doctrine. Dioscoros was never anesthetized for heresy, if I recall correctly. I think he was just deposed for not showing up to defend himself against the allegations of misconduct at Ephesus II (which in the Roman world was seen as an admission of guilt).

Why would Flavian, Theodoret and Eusebius, appeal to Leo? Why not resolve the dispute ecumenically, via council and leave the opinion of one bishop out of the matter?

Well, I think it definitely ties into the respect and canonical status Rome enjoyed as a mediator. On a more practical level, two high ranking bishops had just been deposed by the Patriarch of Alexandria. Dioscoros had achieved a stunning victory in the East, practically leaving himself as the only influential bishop remaining, and these deposed bishops were seeking the help of the only remaining locus of power which could help them. Rome was one of their final hopes, one could say.

 

[joe370]

Cavaradossi;8565083]They’re dense reading, but check out the correspondences between Leo and Marcian. Leo wanted to convene a council in the West, but Marcian would have none of it. Later, we see Leo asking Marcian if holding a council was really necessary, to which Marcian replied by summoning the bishops of the empire to participate in Chalcedon.

I’ll check out the correspondences between Leo and Marcian. :thumbsup:It seems that the eastern emperor and the bishop of Rome had their share of disputes on more than one occasion.

I think it’s clear that Eutyches was a heretic. What us not clear is whether Ephesus II made Eutyches’ beliefs doctrine.

Officially? No. I agree with you.

Dioscoros was never anesthetized for heresy,

I guess they didn’t have any good drugs back then…LOL… Just joking around…

Well, I think it definitely ties into the respect and canonical status Rome enjoyed as a mediator.

I understand that you do not recognize the Petrine office, aka the chair of Peter, but would it be fair to suggest that an ecumenical council, back then, (only when it could not resolve a dispute) - would appeal to Peter’s successor.