Papal Authority, Ephesus and Chalcedon

[PeaceInChrist]

At the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, high praise is given to the Roman bishop and his episcopal see. It is commonly referred to as the ‘Aspostolic See’, and the delegates from Rome are mentioned constantly at Ephesus. There is much mention of the pope carrying on the Petrine ministry. Additionally, at Chalcedon, the Roman delegates demanded, on behalf of the pope, that the patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, be denied a place among the council fathers, and he apparently was. He had held council and had not allowed adequate representation of the Roman See, held somewhat heterodox views, and the Roman legate (Hilarius) apparently nullified his declarations in the name of the pope.

This strikes me as odd (well, not really, since I’m Catholic and not Orthodox), that a council was held by many bishops (with Dioscorus, a powerful patriarch, desiring it to be ecumenical), and was determined errant. It was determined errant by none other than the bishop of Rome (who declared it the Robber Council). The letter Leo wrote was supposed to be read and upheld, and considered dogmatic (and later was at Chalcedon).

To me, this is proof positive of the primacy of Rome. Who else was to say that Dioscorus was wrong? How can there be unity if all are equal? In fact, there is no unity, even among the Orthodox, who are divided on which councils are ecumenical (Eastern and Oriental). Who are the Eastern Orthodox to say that the Oriental Orthodox are wrong? They both have patriarchs that are equal, yes? How can there be unity, or truth at all, for that matter, if there is not one greater? How can there be truth without an infallible See?

Ephesus:

Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that you give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination.

Chalcedon:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: 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. So taught the Apostles.

Maybe I’m just crazy, but history can be very Catholic at times

 

[DavidFilmer]

Canon 749 §1 In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ’s faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.

§2 The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.

§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

Paragraph 3 probably answers your question yet adds to your confusion. According to dictionary.com, the definition of “manifest(ly)” is:

readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent

Suffice it to be said that no doctrine may be considered infallibly promulgated if there is reasonable cause for doubt about the status of this doctrine. While some people might get out their Vatican-1 checklists and form opinions about the nature of various Church teachings, these conclusions are usually their own opinions (though they may be very good and well informed opinions).

HUMANAE VITAE is a good example of a “probably infallible” Papal teaching that the Church has not (yet) declared infallible. According to my Vatican-1 checklist, it is infallible. But the Church has not actually said it is infallible. So I don’t claim it is infallible.

The only way to know for sure if a particular teaching is infallible is if the Church explicitly says that the teaching is infallible. This is a rather rare thing. Thus, the Church *probably *teaches a LOT of doctrine infallibly, but we cannot call it infallible because the Church has not told us it is infallible (our opinion on the “manifestly demonstrated” nature of the teaching notwithstanding).

But the infallible nature of a particular teaching is not really important to Catholics. Catholics are obliged to adhere to ALL of the teachings of the Church - whether infallibly promulgated or not. Catholics are not free to dismiss Magisterial teachings that do not (in their opinion) happen to meet all of the criteria of infallibility. This is a topic that is of interest mainly in an academic sense to Catholic theologians.

 

[Classicist]

Ephesus clearly points to Peter’s supremacy & the unique succession of Rome thereto…

… but we must be very honest with regards to Chalcedon. Leo I wrote his “Tome” defending orthodox Christology in 449. Before anyone said “Peter has spoken through Leo”, the letter was compared with the works of Cyril of Alexandria, the anti-Nestorian hero who had just died 5 years earlier. Partly because of the disagreement over Leo’s letter, the fourth ecumenical Council was called. Only after much deliberation was this famous Petrine acclamation shouted aloud.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Ephesus clearly points to Peter’s supremacy & the unique succession of Rome thereto…

… but we must be very honest with regards to Chalcedon. Leo I wrote his “Tome” defending orthodox Christology in 449. Before anyone said “Peter has spoken through Leo”, the letter was compared with the works of Cyril of Alexandria, the anti-Nestorian hero who had just died 5 years earlier. Partly because of the disagreement over Leo’s letter, the fourth ecumenical Council was called. Only after much deliberation was this famous Petrine acclamation shouted aloud.

I completely agree that Cyril was equally important in regards to the theology discussed. However, even when they acclaimed both Cyril and Leo, they only acclaimed that Peter spoke through Leo. That is all I was pointing out: the Early Church did, in fact, believe in a continuation of the Petrine ministry, and had great respect and reverence for the Roman See. Though there was much debate, this acclamation was the conclusion to which they came.

 

[Boulder257]

You raise a very valid and supported argument. I reach the same conclusion.