If the 'Tome of Leo' was authoritative, then why did the Eastern bishops put the letter to trial?

[CatholicHere_Hi]

Catholics consider the ‘Tome of Leo’ as an example of papal supremacy. When the Pope sent the Tome, the case was closed.

The bishops put the letter to trial though, and finally decided to consider it authoritative only when they didn’t find any contradictions to the twelve chapters of Cyril.

If the letter was the ‘last word’, then why wouldn’t the Eastern bishops accept it immediately on it’s arrival regardless if it agreed with Cyril or not?

 

[Gorgias]

Catholics consider the ‘Tome of Leo’ as an example of papal supremacy. When the Pope sent the Tome, the case was closed.

No, I don’t think that’s the case. It might be viewed as accurately reflecting Leo’s understanding of conciliar teaching, and as such, authoritative, but it doesn’t enter as ‘doctrinal pronouncement’ until later, when it was accepted as such by a council.

If the letter was the ‘last word’, then why wouldn’t the Eastern bishops accept it immediately on it’s arrival

Because it’s written as a personal letter from a pope to a patriarch, and not a formal document of the Church?

 

[Zaccheus]

What is the Tome of Leo?

 

[Genesis315]

St. Leo himself tells us:

On the return of our brothers and fellow priests, whom the See of the blessed Peter sent to the holy council, we ascertained, beloved, the victory you and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy of Nestorius, as well as over the madness of Eutyches. Wherefore we make our boast in the Lord, singing with the prophet: “our help is in the name of the Lord, who has made heaven and earth :” who has suffered us to sustain no harm in the person of our brethren, but has corroborated by the irrevocable assent of the whole brotherhood what He had already laid down through our ministry: to show that, what had been first formulated by the foremost See of Christendom, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, had truly proceeded from Himself: that in this, too, the members may be at one with the Head. And herein our cause for rejoicing grows greater when we see that the more fiercely the foe assailed Christ’s servants, the more did he afflict himself. For lest the assent of other Sees to that which the Lord of all has appointed to take precedence of the rest might seem mere complaisance, or lest any other evil suspicion might creep in, some were found to dispute our decisions before they were finally accepted. And while some, instigated by the author of the disagreement, rush forward into a warfare of contradictions, a greater good results through his fall under the guiding hand of the Author of all goodness. For the gifts of God’s grace are sweeter to us when they are gained with mighty efforts: and uninterrupted peace is wont to seem a lesser good than one that is restored by labours. Moreover, the Truth itself shines more brightly, and is more bravely maintained when what the Faith had already taught is afterwards confirmed by further inquiry. And still further, the good name of the priestly office gains much in lustre where the authority of the highest is preserved without it being thought that the liberty of the lower ranks has been at all infringed. And the result of a discussion contributes to the greater glory of God when the debaters exert themselves with confidence in overcoming the gainsayers: that what of itself is shown wrong may not seem to be passed over in prejudicial silence.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604120.htm

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

No, I don’t think that’s the case. It might be viewed as accurately reflecting Leo’s understanding of conciliar teaching, and as such, authoritative, but it doesn’t enter as ‘doctrinal pronouncement’ until later, when it was accepted as such by a council

What exactly does the Pope have primacy over in these council’s then, if what he says has to be approved by the bishops?

 

[Gorgias]

What exactly does the Pope have primacy over in these council’s then, if what he says has to be approved by the bishops?

It was approved as an official assertion of Church doctrine. When it was written, it wasn’t meant as such. They were approving it – based on the quality and accuracy of its assertions – in a context that it originally didn’t attempt to possess.

 

[Genesis315]

The Tome certainly was intended as a dogmatic decision. Again, read the passage from St. Leo on this very topic in my previous post in this thread. He explains why the council’s decision was a good thing even though he already authoritatively decided the matter.

 

[Gorgias]

The Tome certainly was intended as a dogmatic decision.

It expressed the teachings of the Church, without a doubt. However, he didn’t express it as a unilateral teaching, to be accepted merely from his lips.

Again, read the passage from St. Leo on this very topic in my previous post in this thread. He explains why the council’s decision was a good thing even though he already authoritatively decided the matter.

Read a bit further in the letter.

Leo:

in the pool of doctrine, we go not away in anything from those rules of Faith which the Godhead of the Holy Ghost brought forward at the Council of Chalcedon…

…in the letter which we issued from the Apostolic See, and which has been ratified by the assent of the entire holy Synod, we know that so many divinely authorised witnesses are brought together, that no one can entertain any further doubt… and the proceedings of the Synod whether those in which we read the formulating of the definition of Faith, or those in which the aforesaid letter of the Apostolic See was zealously supported by you, brother, and especially the address of the whole Council to our most religious Princes, are corroborated by the testimonies of so many fathers in the past that they must persuade any one.

Leo means for his teaching to be ‘ratified’ by the council so that, together and with a united front, they might teach correct doctrine.

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

Wouldn’t that still make the other bishops the judge of Orthodoxy then? Thus proving the EO position that they don’t need the Pope to finalize a doctrine?

 

[CRM_Brother]

Wouldn’t that still make the other bishops the judge of Orthodoxy then? Thus proving the EO position that they don’t need the Pope to finalize a doctrine?

I don’t think that is what is being said. That somewhat smacks of Conciliarism.

The Pope had declared the position of his Christology in the Tome of Leo infallibly and yet some members of the Church still denied it. The Council is simply restating these truths which Pope Leo had laid down using their Ordinary infallibility as an Ecumenical Council. It was simply a matter of procedure that the issue must be examined and debated before a declaration is put forth. The very fact that they changed nothing from the Tome of Leo and simply endorsed it as the Dogmatic Formulation says a lot about the Council’s respect for Pope Leo’s authority on the matter.

A similar matter can be found in Vatican II in Lumen Gentium. Before Lumen Gentium was voted on, everything within it was discussed, even the dogmatic aspects which had already been officially defined solely through infallible proclamation ex cathedra: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. It was not in opposition to the Pope’s authority that these aspects were discussed, it was simply a point of procedure.

 

[twf]

It is counter productive for Catholics to impose an anachronistic understanding of the papacy on the early Church. Historically, objectively, the papacy did NOT operate as it does today in the first millennium. Catholic lay apologists who engage in historical revisionism do a great disservice to the faith.
We as Catholics must acknowledge the plain truth: there has been significant development of doctrine regarding the papacy.

Did Pope St Leo claim primacy over the entire Church? Certainly he did…and as a Catholic I believe he did so rightfully. But he would never have thought to act in a vacuum apart from his brother bishops. He would never have thought to go over the council…but rather to work with and through the council. There was no “Vatican”. There was no “CDF”. The Bishop of Rome exercised primacy, but decisions were made by councils and synods, not by the pope and a curia in Rome.

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

He would never have thought to go over the council…but rather to work with and through the council.

Fair enough.

But didn’t Rome do that very thing when they included the Filioque by going over the Eastern churches?

 

[Genesis315]

Wouldn’t that still make the other bishops the judge of Orthodoxy then?

According to Catholic doctrine, all bishops are judges of orthodoxy. In fact, the entire body exercises the supreme authority in this matter, just as the head alone. With Chalcedon we see both, which, as St. Leo says, demonstrates the unity of the head with the body.

 

[Genesis315]

He didn’t submit his Tome for ratification as if it needed it to be authoritative. In fact, he specifically says it came from Christ–it was “what [Christ] had already laid down through our ministry.” The defense and assent of the council was further proof of this in the face of those who denied it. What not strictly necessary for the authority of a decision, collegial action is always helpful and was an important part of the praxis of the Church as twf mentions above (as it still is and should be).