The Council of Chalcedon and the papacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
Why would the Council of Chalcedon (attended by almost all bishops from the church in the east) - clearly recognize Pope Leo as the successor of Peter as well as the Head of the Church, if in fact, Pope Leo was not the head of the church, as Eastern orthodox (those not in communion with the Catholic Church) - Christians maintain?

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

“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.”

“Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness.”*
 
joe370 said:
Why would the Council of Chalcedon (attended by almost all bishops from the church in the east) - clearly recognize Pope Leo as the successor of Peter as well as the Head of the Church, if in fact, Pope Leo was not the head of the church, as Eastern orthodox (those not in communion with the Catholic Church) - Christians maintain?

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

“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.”

“Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness.”*
Click to expand...
The Council of Chalcedon is a really, really bad example to use to try and prove the pope is the head of the Church (at least in the sense modern Roman Catholics believe). Take a look at the acts and extracts and you’ll see why. 😉

In Christ
Joe
 
Actually, I agree with Joseph. The Fathers DID acclaim Leo, but they did not acclaim him as head when they said “Peter has spoken through Leo!” They went on to Say “THis is what Cyril taught, Leo and Cyril teach alike!” WHich is intself extremely questionable, given as Cyrils’s Right hand Man, Pope Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria had serious issues with “The Tome.”

Be that as it may, each Bishop looked over the Tome and after stating they had found it Orthodox, subscribed their signatures to it.

Leo was acclaimed because of his orthodoxy. St. Cyril’s writings were the Litmus test LEO had to pass in order to be considered Orthodox. Leo, didn’t simply issue proclamations that were blindly followed at Chalcedon, he contributed his letter, and it was subject to conciliar scrutiny.

Cyril , the Doctor of the Incarnation (WHose book “On The Unity of Christ” is a Chalcedonian must read to understand the Non-Chalcedonian position) and the council of Chalcedon, which considered it’s view as representative of Cyril’s own, were the judges of the “Tome of Leo.”

St. Cyril’s Orthodoxy is still the Christolgical yardstick to this day, for he preceded Leo, and it was against HIM that the “Tomus” was measured.
 
Gregory_I said:
Actually, I agree with Joseph. The Fathers DID acclaim Leo, but they did not acclaim him as head when they said “Peter has spoken through Leo!” They went on to Say “THis is what Cyril taught, Leo and Cyril teach alike!” WHich is intself extremely questionable, given as Cyrils’s Right hand Man, Pope Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria had serious issues with “The Tome.”

Be that as it may, each Bishop looked over the Tome and after stating they had found it Orthodox, subscribed their signatures to it.

Leo was acclaimed because of his orthodoxy. St. Cyril’s writings were the Litmus test LEO had to pass in order to be considered Orthodox. Leo, didn’t simply issue proclamations that were blindly followed at Chalcedon, he contributed his letter, and it was subject to conciliar scrutiny.

Cyril , the Doctor of the Incarnation (WHose book “On The Unity of Christ” is a Chalcedonian must read to understand the Non-Chalcedonian position) and the council of Chalcedon, which considered it’s view as representative of Cyril’s own, were the judges of the “Tome of Leo.”

St. Cyril’s Orthodoxy is still the Christolgical yardstick to this day, for he preceded Leo, and it was against HIM that the “Tomus” was measured.
Click to expand...
You’re right, but so what?

Was he making an infallible definition or being a bishop?

He was still proclaimed the head of the church, let’s not ignore that.
 
He was acknowledged as head of the church, but the tome was a personal letter to flavian.

it is infallible because it was ratified by an ecumenical council.
 
Azurestone said:
You’re right, but so what?

Was he making an infallible definition or being a bishop?

He was still proclaimed the head of the church, let’s not ignore that.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the fathers of the council completely ignored the command of the “head of the Church” to not seat Dioscorus at the council and seated him anyway.

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave…

…The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?..

…The most glorious judges and the full senate, said: It is proper that you should set forth specifically in what he hath gone astray…

…And when Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly had sat down in the midst, and the most reverend Roman bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence.

Not exactly a stunning endorsement of papal supremacy. 😉

Link
 
This is way it is so important to understand that MOST of what the Bishop of Rome says, he says not as Head of the Catholic Church, but only as the Bishop of Rome. Only when he speaks to the whole Church does he have the authority of St Peter. Look at it this way: The Bishop of Rome is a lessor authority than an Ecumenical Council, but the Pope (the successor to St Peter) is a greater authority than an Ecumenical Council. This is how he can be acknowledged as head of the Church in one context, yet submissive to the Council in another context.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Not exactly a stunning endorsement of papal supremacy. 😉

Link
Click to expand...
Did you read the whole thing?
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said:* Let him give a reason for his judgment.* For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction.* And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.
Click to expand...
Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said:* We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop “Pope” for “bishop” in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said:* We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he who is come to be judged should sit down [as one to give judgment].
The glorious judges and the whole senate said:* If you hold the office of judge, you ought not to defend yourself as if you were to be judged.
And when Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly had sat down in the midst, and the most reverend Roman bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence, Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of the city of Dorylæum, stepping into the midst, said:
[He then presented a petition, and the Acts of the Latrocinium were read.* Also the Acts of the council of Constantinople under Flavian against Eutyches (col. 175).]
Click to expand...
Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, representing the Apostolic See, said; Flavian of blessed memory hath most holily and perfectly expounded the faith.* His faith and exposition agrees with the epistle of the most blessed and apostolic man, the bishop of Rome.
Anatolius the most reverend archbishop of Constantinople said; The blessed Flavian hath beautifully and orthodoxly set forth the faith of our fathers.
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop, and legate of the Apostolic See, said; Since the faith of Flavian of blessed memory agrees with the Apostolic See and the tradition of the fathers it is just that the sentence by which he was condemned by the heretics should be turned back upon them by this most holy synod.
Maximus the most reverend bishop of Antioch in Syria, said:* Archbishop Flavian of blessed memory hath set forth the faith orthodoxly and in accordance with the most beloved-of-God and most holy Archbishop Leo.* And this we all receive with zeal.
Thalassius, the most reverend bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia said; Flavian of blessed memory hath spoken in accordance with Cyril of blessed memory.
[And so, one after another, the bishops expressed their opinions.* The reading of the acts of the Council of Constantinople was then continued.]
And at this point of the reading, Dioscorus, the most reverend Archbishop of Alexandria said, I receive “the of two;” “the two” I do not receive (τὸ ἐκ δύο δέχομαι· τὸ δύο, οὐ δέχομαι).* I am forced to be impudent, but the matter is one which touches my soul.
[After a few remarks the reading was continued and the rest of the acts of the Latrocinium of Ephesus completed.* The judges then postponed to the morrow the setting forth a decree on the faith but intimated that Dioscorus and his associates should suffer the punishment to which they unjustly sentenced Flavian. This met with the approval of all the bishops except those of Illyrica who said: “We all have erred, let us all be pardoned.
Click to expand...
”* (col. 323.) ]

So in summary, he came in sat down, was judged, and punished. Notice how the council supported THE Apostolic See.
 
joe370 said:
Why would the Council of Chalcedon (attended by almost all bishops from the church in the east) - clearly recognize Pope Leo as the successor of Peter as well as the Head of the Church, if in fact, Pope Leo was not the head of the church, as Eastern orthodox (those not in communion with the Catholic Church) - Christians maintain?

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

“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.”

“Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness.”*
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t. The fact is that the See of Peter has had the primacy since the beginning of the Church.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Yes, and the fathers of the council completely ignored the command of the “head of the Church” to not seat Dioscorus at the council and seated him anyway.
Click to expand...
That does not nullify an infallible declaration of an Ecumenical Council.
BTW, your apparent understanding of the Primacy of the See of Peter has a fundamental flaw, not everything said by the Pope is said from the Chair of Peter. Sometimes he speaks only as a brother Bishop. Also you should understand that that See presides in charity.
 
Hey Joe…

Are you saying that the council of Chalcedon did not recognize the bishop of Rome (the chair of Peter) - as the head of the Catholic Church, both east and west?
josephdaniel29 said:
The Council of Chalcedon is a really, really bad example to use to try and prove the pope is the head of the Church (at least in the sense modern Roman Catholics believe). Take a look at the acts and extracts and you’ll see why. 😉

In Christ
Joe
Click to expand...
 
Josephdan… are you suggesting that Dioscorus, (who was recognized as the Patriarch by the Coptic Church until his death) - was not denied a place among the council fathers, and was not deposed by the Council of Chalcedon?
 
Azurestone said:
Did you read the whole thing?

So in summary, he came in sat down, was judged, and punished. Notice how the council supported THE Apostolic See.
Click to expand...
He was seated despite the objections of the papal legates and then was judged by the council not the pope. Can you imagine that same scenario playing itself out in the modern Catholic Church? Would the bishops of the Second Vatican Council have seated a bishop over the objections of Pope John XXIII? We both know the answer to that. 😉

That is our entire objection to modern Catholic teaching. Even if, for the sake of argument, we concede that the pope was the “head” of the Church, it’s clear from even a cursory reading of Church history that the authority of the pope was not what it is today in the Catholic Church.

In Christ
Joe
 
joe370 said:
Josephdan… are you suggesting that Dioscorus, (who was recognized as the Patriarch by the Coptic Church until his death) - was not denied a place among the council fathers, and was not deposed by the Council of Chalcedon?
Click to expand...
He was seated at the council despite the objections of the papal legates and was then deposed by the council after hearing the evidence against him.
 
But he was NOT deposed for Heresy, remember, his VIEW was Orthodox, for it was the View of Cyril, he was Cyril’s right hand man, his Deacon who accompanied him to EPhesus.

He was deposed for bad conduct and an inclination to violence (Which he probably learned from St. Cyril, sadly)
 
josephdaniel29 said:
He was seated despite the objections of the papal legates and then was judged by the council not the pope. Can you imagine that same scenario playing itself out in the modern Catholic Church? Would the bishops of the Second Vatican Council have seated a bishop over the objections of Pope John XXIII? We both know the answer to that. 😉

That is our entire objection to modern Catholic teaching. Even if, for the sake of argument, we concede that the pope was the “head” of the Church, it’s clear from even a cursory reading of Church history that the authority of the pope was not what it is today in the Catholic Church.

In Christ
Joe
Click to expand...
I just don’t see the mountain you’re describing out of this mole hill.

The Legates of the Pope saw the offending Bishop and demanded he wasn’t fit to sit in the council. The council did better than kick him out, they heard him and judged him. Instead of letting the matter fester, they made a decision as a council of the Church.

Following the request to the letter is a bit robotic. It is, IMHO, indicative of your view of the Pope as a dictator as opposed to the “head of the Church”.
 
I believe that an Ecumenical Council is a strictly collegial authority. It is not a group of bishops who are there simply on the Pope’s says so. It is a colloqium of bishops who all sit equally as judges, whose decisions are to be confirmed by its protos, the bishop of Rome.

When the bishops sat together at the first session, it did not seem, judging from the Acts, that they knew that Pope St. Dioscorus came there to be judged. Hence, the Fathers repeatedly asked the Roman legates, “what are the charges?” Given the circumstances, it seems perfectly understandable, and should not be carelessly seen as an indication that they did not regard the bishop of Rome as their head. In fact, it appears the Roman legates were rather bull-headed for not complying with the repeated request to expose the charges against Pope St. Dioscorus.

On the other hand, I don’t believe we as Catholics are expected to blindly follow the Pope. Papal supremacy/primacy is not papal tyranny!

Blessings,
Marduk
 
JohnVIII said:
This is way it is so important to understand that MOST of what the Bishop of Rome says, he says not as Head of the Catholic Church, but only as the Bishop of Rome. Only when he speaks to the whole Church does he have the authority of St Peter. Look at it this way: The Bishop of Rome is a lessor authority than an Ecumenical Council, but the Pope (the successor to St Peter) is a greater authority than an Ecumenical Council. This is how he can be acknowledged as head of the Church in one context, yet submissive to the Council in another context.
Click to expand...
Do you have any documents from the early Church to indicate that these two offices, that of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope were distinguished from one another?

It doesn’t seem likely. Nicaea based the position of Bishop as first on his city, not on who he succeeded, and the title of Pope was used for several hundred years in Alexandria before it began to be used in Rome. Did Rome not have these special powers before the title existed or was it an office without a title that the bishop held? What about those who have legitimate claim to the title of Pope from an earlier time, do they not then wield this special power?

I keep hearing Catholics say the two titles are distinct, but it doesn’t add up. Pope is a title, not an office because no such office was instituted by the early church, and even once it was instituted it was not unique.
 
Nine_Two said:
Do you have any documents from the early Church to indicate that these two offices, that of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope were distinguished from one another?

It doesn’t seem likely. Nicaea based the position of Bishop as first on his city, not on who he succeeded, and the title of Pope was used for several hundred years in Alexandria before it began to be used in Rome. Did Rome not have these special powers before the title existed or was it an office without a title that the bishop held? What about those who have legitimate claim to the title of Pope from an earlier time, do they not then wield this special power?

I keep hearing Catholics say the two titles are distinct, but it doesn’t add up. Pope is a title, not an office because no such office was instituted by the early church, and even once it was instituted it was not unique.
Click to expand...
Since it is me you ask it is my answer you will get. Peter alone was given the Keys by Christ. Peter was never a bishop of any see anywhere, not Antioch nor Rome. The early documents say that Peter choose Clement to be his successor, not Linus, nor Cletus. So this means that Clement succeeded Peter in 68 AD when Peter Died. Clement did not become the 3rd bishop of Rome until 89 AD. Clement said PRIOR to 89 AD, “I retire, I depart, let the people of God be in peace”. I think this was done out of respect for Bishop Cletus. As I see it the two offices of “Pope” and the bishop of Rome were not held by the same man until 89 AD. The calling of “Pope” came directly from Christ and it didn’t begin to be mainly acknowledged by the Church until some after a few centuries.

And yes you are correct about the history of the title “Pope”. I am only using it as it is commonly understood by Roman Catholics. I know of no other term to use to refer to the successor to St Peter, so perhaps you are also right to say that was “an office without a title”.

Don’t forget that Paul was an apostle for 12 years, according to the Bible, before the Church acknowledged him as such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top