The robber council and the importance of the papacy

[paul_c]

I’ve been delving a bit into Church history and I came upon the robber council and it highlights just how important the papacy is to the Church:

The robber council was held in Ephesus in 449 AD. It was called by the emperor with the appoval of Pope Leo I. The issue at hand was the monophysite heresy, propagated by Dioscurus, the patriarch of Alexandria, and Eutyches, the head of a monastery outside of Constantinople. They proposed that Jesus had only a divine and not a human nature. The emperor placed Dioscurus at the head of the council and he manipulated the council in a way that only his views were heard. He ignored the papal legates who had a letter from Pope Leo which described the true nature of Christ as having fully human and fully divine natures in one person (the hypostatic union). The council ratified the Monophysite heresy and in the process vindicated Dioscurus and Eutyches against those who had labeled it a heresy.

This council was subsequently nullified by Pope Leo, who called a separate council in Chalcedon which was held in 451 AD. His teachings of the Hypostatic union were accepted by the whole church, Dioscurus and Eutyches were excommunicated and banished from their positions.

There are a few key points to be made concerning the robber council. First and foremost, we see the Pope demonstrating Papal Primacy in the East at an early age in the church, nullifying an Ecumenical council on his own authority and even replacing an Eastern Patriarch. Secondly, we see him defining true Church doctrine as the successor of St. Peter - the hypstatic union is acknowledged by virtually all Christians today (the Coptics are about all that remain of the monophysites). Third, it is a constant refrain from many Protestants that Nicea canon 6 put the patriarch of Alexandria on equal footing with the Pope. It is quite clear from the actions at Chalcedon that this clearly wasn’t the case.

Finally, if it wasn’t for the pope to clarify things, we would be following heresy today

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Were there robbers at the council?

 

[RyanBlack]

This council was subsequently nullified by Pope Leo, who called a separate council in Chalcedon which was held in 451 AD. His teachings of the Hypostatic union were accepted by the whole church, Dioscurus and Eutyches were excommunicated and banished from their positions.

Actually, the teaching of the hypostatic union, which had been articulated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, had been accepted by the Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

Secondly, we see him defining true Church doctrine as the successor of St. Peter - the hypstatic union is acknowledged by virtually all Christians today (the Coptics are about all that remain of the monophysites).

As I already pointed out, the teaching of the hypostatic union had already been defined. Also, you seem to have a few misconceptions about the Coptic Orthodox. For one, they accept the teaching of the hypostatic union, which was articulated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, whom they revere as a saint, and whose christology they follow. Also, the Coptic Orthodox are not monophysites, at least not of the Eutychian variety, which is the heresy that was addressed by the Council of Chalcedon. They acknowledge that Christ is both truly human and truly divine, and they condemn the heresy of Eutyches. Their christology is often called miaphysitism. Finally, the Coptic Orthodox are not an isolated, fringe group. They are one of several churches that make up the Oriental Orthodox communion of churches, that also includes the Ethiopian Orthodox, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Church.

 

[paul_c]

Were there robbers at the council?

That was the name given it by pope Leo I, because the monophysites tried to steal the faith
newadvent.org/cathen/05495a.htm

 

[paul_c]

Actually, the teaching of the hypostatic union, which had been articulated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, had been accepted by the Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

Well, the Catholic encyclopedia says it was settled at Chalcedon in 451: newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm

As I already pointed out, the teaching of the hypostatic union had already been defined. Also, you seem to have a few misconceptions about the Coptic Orthodox. For one, they accept the teaching of the hypostatic union, which was articulated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, whom they revere as a saint, and whose christology they follow. Also, the Coptic Orthodox are not monophysites, at least not of the Eutychian variety, which is the heresy that was addressed by the Council of Chalcedon. They acknowledge that Christ is both truly human and truly divine, and they condemn the heresy of Eutyches. Their christology is often called miaphysitism. Finally, the Coptic Orthodox are not an isolated, fringe group. They are one of several churches that make up the Oriental Orthodox communion of churches, that also includes the Ethiopian Orthodox, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Church.

You are right, there are 36M oriental Orthodox adherents of which 10M are coptics according to adherents.com adherents.com/Na/Na_489.html
Not insignificant by any means, but still 3% of the size of the Catholic Church.
But its clear that they broke from the Catholic Church over the findings at Chalcedon. They only recognize the first three councils. while the Nestorians only recognize the first two.

But this is a side issue to my bigger point, which was that Pope Leo clearly demonstrated Papal primacy during these events (the robber council in 449 and Chalcedon in 451), nullifying a council on his own authority and excommunicating the patriarch of Alexandria.

 

[RyanBlack]

Well, the Catholic encyclopedia says it was settled at Chalcedon in 451: newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm.

They hypostatic union was taught by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and was clearly articulated in his Twelve Anathemas against Nestorius. These Twelve Anathemas were adopted by the Council of Ephesus. So it was already settled at Ephesus. The Tome of St. Leo gave assent to previously settled christological teaching, while also condeming the heresy of Eutyches.

You are right, there are 36M oriental Orthodox adherents of which 10M are coptics according to adherents.com adherents.com/Na/Na_489.html
Not insignificant by any means, but still 3% of the size of the Catholic Church.
But its clear that they broke from the Catholic Church over the findings at Chalcedon. They only recognize the first three councils. while the Nestorians only recognize the first two.

I’m aware of this. What a lot of people don’t realize is that the Oriental Orthodox do not now, nor did they at the time of Chalcedon, hold to the heresy of Eutyches. They champion the Cyrillian teaching of the hypostatic union and condemn the Eutychian heresy that Christ does not have a human nature consubstantial with our own. They were unable to accept the Council of Chalcedon because they were highly suspicious of the Tome of St. Leo, which they believed to be too sympathetic to the Antiochene school of christology, which shaped the thought of Nestorius. I have little doubt that much of this was due to the fact that much of the theological terminology of the time held slightly different meanings in different places throughout the Roman Empire. Ultimately, the christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and that of the Catholic Church can be reconciled, which is reflected in the joint christological statements that Rome and the Oriental Orthodox have issued.

 

[paul_c]

They hypostatic union was taught by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and was clearly articulated in his Twelve Anathemas against Nestorius. These Twelve Anathemas were adopted by the Council of Ephesus. So it was already settled at Ephesus. The Tome of St. Leo gave assent to previously settled christological teaching, while also condeming the heresy of Eutyches.

I’m aware of this. What a lot of people don’t realize is that the Oriental Orthodox do not now, nor did they at the time of Chalcedon, hold to the heresy of Eutyches. They champion the Cyrillian teaching of the hypostatic union and condemn the Eutychian heresy that Christ does not have a human nature consubstantial with our own. They were unable to accept the Council of Chalcedon because they were highly suspicious of the Tome of St. Leo, which they believed to be too sympathetic to the Antiochene school of christology, which shaped the thought of Nestorius. I have little doubt that much of this was due to the fact that much of the theological terminology of the time held slightly different meanings in different places throughout the Roman Empire. Ultimately, the christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and that of the Catholic Church can be reconciled, which is reflected in the joint christological statements that Rome and the Oriental Orthodox have issued.

Let’s hope that is the case. 1500 years is a long time to be separated because of semantics. But again, my main point was to point out the reality of Papal Primacy in the 5th century, even if a small group (and 3% is a small group) wouldn’t recognize it.

 

[RyanBlack]

Let’s hope that is the case. 1500 years is a long time to be separated because of semantics. But again, my main point was to point out the reality of Papal Primacy in the 5th century, even if a small group (and 3% is a small group) wouldn’t recognize it.

I understand what your main point is, but it’s very important to be correct on the other facts. Failure to do so only harms your main argument. I would also add that using the Council of Chalcedon (or any of the ancient Councils) is a tough sell for illustrating papal primacy, especially papal primacy as it is currently understood by most Catholics.

The bishops at Chalcedon didn’t just accept the Tome of Pope St. Leo simply because it came from the Pope of Rome. In fact, a number of bishops were quite suspicious that it was basically Nestorian. This resulted in the appointing of a committee of bishops for the purpose of examining the suspicious passages for their orthodoxy and an adjournment of the Council. It was only after they determined the orthodoxy of the Tome by comparing it to the christological teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria that the Council resumed and the bishops accepted the Tome. This doesn’t exactly amount to proof of the exercise of papal primacy, and certainly not from the point of view of any of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome.

 

[paul_c]

I understand what your main point is, but it’s very important to be correct on the other facts. Failure to do so only harms your main argument. I would also add that using the Council of Chalcedon (or any of the ancient Councils) is a tough sell for illustrating papal primacy, especially papal primacy as it is currently understood by most Catholics.

The bishops at Chalcedon didn’t just accept the Tome of Pope St. Leo simply because it came from the Pope of Rome. In fact, a number of bishops were quite suspicious that it was basically Nestorian. This resulted in the appointing of a committee of bishops for the purpose of examining the suspicious passages for their orthodoxy and an adjournment of the Council. It was only after they determined the orthodoxy of the Tome by comparing it to the christological teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria that the Council resumed and the bishops accepted the Tome. This doesn’t exactly amount to proof of the exercise of papal primacy, and certainly not from the point of view of any of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome.

Where did you get this information? The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about it:
newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm

The second session (10 October) was occupied with the reading of testimonia bearing on questions of faith, chiefly those under discussion. Among them were the symbols or creeds of the Councils of Nicaea (325) and of Constantinople (381); two letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria, viz. his second letter to Nestorius and the letter written to the Antiochene bishops in 433 after his reconciliation with them; finally the dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I. All these documents were approved by the council. When the pope’s famous epistle was read the members of the council exclaimed that the faith contained therein was the faith of the Fathers and of the Apostles; that through Leo, Peter had spoken.

At the closing of the sessions the council wrote a letter to Pope Leo I, in which the Fathers informed him of what had been done; thanked him for the exposition of Christian Faith contained in his dogmatic epistle; spoke of his legates as having presided over them in his name; and asked for the ratification of the disciplinary matters enacted, particularly canon 28. This letter was handed to the papal legates, who departed for Rome soon after the last session of the council. Similar letters were written to Pope Leo in December by Emperor Marcian and Anatolius of Constantinople. In reply Pope Leo protested most energetically against canon xxviii and declared it null and void as being against the prerogatives of Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and against the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. Like protests were contained in the letters written 22 May, 452, to Emperor Marcian, Empress Pulcheria, and Anatolius of Constantinople. Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith. This approval was contained in letters written 21 March, 453, to the bishops who took part in the council; hence the Council of Chalcedon, at least as to the first six sessions, became an ecumenical synod, and was considered as such by all Christians, both in the time of Poe Leo and after him. The Emperor Marcian issued several edicts (7 February, 13 March, and 28 July, 452) in which he approved the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, forbade all discussions on questions of faith, forbade the Eutychians to have priests, to live in monasteries, to hold meetings, to inherit anything, to bequeath anything to their partisans, or to join the army. The clerics among the followers of Eutyches, hitherto orthodox, and the monks of his monastery, were to be expelled from Roman territory, as once the Manichæans were. The writings of the Eutychians were to be burned; their authors, or those who spread them, were to be punished with confiscation and banishment. Finally Eutyches and Dioscurus were both banished. The former died about that time, while the latter lived to the year 454 in Gangra in Paphlagonia

.

 

[RyanBlack]

It is well known that some of the bishops, at Session II of the Council, questioned some of the passages of the Tome of St. Leo, suspecting Nestorianism. Bishop Atticos of Nikopolis suggested that the bishops be given time to examine the Tome against the Twelve Chapters of Cyril. The imperian representatives chairing that session granted the request, and gave five days, suggesting that the formation of a committee under the direction of Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. The committee reported back that they believed the Tome to be consistent with the faith of both Nicea and Ephesus, as well as with the Twelve Chapters of Cyril.

romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm

 

[paul_c]

It is well known that some of the bishops, at Session II of the Council, questioned some of the passages of the Tome of St. Leo, suspecting Nestorianism. Bishop Atticos of Nikopolis suggested that the bishops be given time to examine the Tome against the Twelve Chapters of Cyril. The imperian representatives chairing that session granted the request, and gave five days, suggesting that the formation of a committee under the direction of Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. The committee reported back that they believed the Tome to be consistent with the faith of both Nicea and Ephesus, as well as with the Twelve Chapters of Cyril.

romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm

I read this work by Romanides, an orthodox theologian. Recognize that his opinions of what happened at Chalcedon are just that (opinions) and he is challenged in the final section on approaching his work from a biased point of view (which he acknowledged). he certainly favors St. Cyril over Pope Leo, but the facts remain that the robber council was nullified by Pope Leo on his personal authority, that Dioscoros, the Patriarch of Alexandria was deposed, and Leo’s point of view became Church doctrine, with only a few percent of the church going into schism over it.

 

[RyanBlack]

I read this work by Romanides, an orthodox theologian. Recognize that his opinions of what happened at Chalcedon are just that (opinions) and he is challenged in the final section on approaching his work from a biased point of view (which he acknowledged). he certainly favors St. Cyril over Pope Leo, but the facts remain that the robber council was nullified by Pope Leo on his personal authority, that Dioscoros, the Patriarch of Alexandria was deposed, and Leo’s point of view became Church doctrine, with only a few percent of the church going into schism over it.

I don’t dispute what you are saying about the nullification of the of the Robber Council, the depsition of Dioscorus, etc. However, the sessions of the Council itself demonstrate that there were bishops there who did not immediately accept the Tome of Pope St. Leo. It was not accepted simply because it came from the Pope. It was accepted because, after examination, the majority of bishops agreed that it articulated the faith of Nicea and Ephesus (including the christological teachings of St. Cyril. By the way, I would suggest to you that New Advent is no more free of bias than Romanides.

 

[paul_c]

I don’t dispute what you are saying about the nullification of the of the Robber Council, the depsition of Dioscorus, etc. However, the sessions of the Council itself demonstrate that there were bishops there who did not immediately accept the Tome of Pope St. Leo. It was not accepted simply because it came from the Pope. It was accepted because, after examination, the majority of bishops agreed that it articulated the faith of Nicea and Ephesus (including the christological teachings of St. Cyril. By the way, I would suggest to you that New Advent is no more free of bias than Romanides.

I will gladly accept your point that all historians carry their own biases but Romanides is far out on the fringe: this is the view from the orthodox wiki page: orthodoxwiki.org/Fourth_Ecumenical_Council

here is the key passages:

Concerning Christ’s nature and personhood, the Council rejected Dioscorus’ position, and proclaimed that:

...while Christ is a single, undivided person, He is not only from two natures but in two natures. The bishops acclaimed the Tome of St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome (died 461), in which the distinction between the two natures is clearly stated, although the unity of Christ's person is also emphasized. In their proclamation of faith they stated their belief in 'one and the same son, perfect in Godhead and perfect in humanity, truly God and truly human... acknowledged in two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference between the natures is in no way removed because of the union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature is preserved, and both combine in one person and in one hypostasis.

This definition, where the distinction between Christ’s two natures and the unity of His personhood are both emphasized, was aimed not only at the Monophysites, but also the followers of Nestorius.

Concerning the visible organization of the Church, Canon 28 confirmed Canon 3 of the Second Council and left the assignment of Constantinople, or New Rome, second in honor after ‘old’ Rome. This was a blow to the Alexandrians and their desire to “rule supreme” in the east. Leo of Rome rejected this canon, but the east has always recognized its validity. The Council also freed Jerusalem from the jurisdiction of Caesarea and gave it the fifth place in honor, thus creating what is known by the Orthodox as the ‘Pentarchy’. This Pentarchy settled the order of precedence. In order of rank:

Rome
Constantinople
Alexandria
Antioch
Jerusalem

Regarding the second misunderstanding, the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of Papal authority as established in 1870 by the Vatican Council and taught in the Roman Catholic Church today. But neither do they deny Rome its place of primacy, as she is first in honor as set up by the second Council. It was Rome, after all, who stayed most true to the faith during many of the heresies over the centuries. Where the Orthodox see Rome going wrong is when they turned this place of ‘primacy’ in love (as St. Ignatius called it) into a place of supremacy of external jurisdiction and power. And so the primacy assigned to Rome does not overthrow the essential equality of all bishops. The Pope may be the ‘first Bishop in the Church,’ but he is first among equals.

Keep in mind that the Council of Chalcedon was almost completely populated by bishops of the East as well. Besides Pope Leo’s legates, the only bishops from the west were two representatives from Africa, who happened to be in town at the time (the west was occupied by Attila the Hun). Nevertheless, Pope Leo’s position held the day as recognized even by the Orthodox as shown by this wiki article.

 

[RyanBlack]

I will gladly accept your point that all historians carry their own biases but Romanides is far out on the fringe: this is the view from the orthodox wiki page: orthodoxwiki.org/Fourth_Ecumenical_Council

here is the key passages:

Keep in mind that the Council of Chalcedon was almost completely populated by bishops of the East as well. Besides Pope Leo’s legates, the only bishops from the west were two representatives from Africa, who happened to be in town at the time (the west was occupied by Attila the Hun). Nevertheless, Pope Leo’s position held the day as recognized even by the Orthodox as shown by this wiki article.

Thank you, but I really don’t need to be lectured about this most basic level of information concerning Chalcedon. I know that the Council of Chalcedon was made up almost entirely of Eastern bishops–all of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils were. I also know that the position of Pope Leo held the day–in no place have I denied that, or even hinted at a denial. Furthemore, anyone who knows anything about the history of the Ecumenical Councils knows that the (Eastern) Orthodox accept the Tome of Leo, since they accept the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and honor Leo as a saint. I’m trying to point out (and you don’t need Romanides for this, just look in the sessions of the Council itself), is that the bishops at Chalcedon didn’t just automatically accept the Tome of St. Leo just because it came from the Bishop of Rome. Rather, they accepted it as an authoritative voice on the matter of the Eutychian heresy (and christology in general), because, having heard it, they recognized it as a true statement of the faith of the Church as articulated both by the Council of Nicea and the Council of Ephesus, as well as by the christological teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was instrumental in shaping the teachings of the Council of Ephesus.

 

[choliks]

Thank you, but I really don’t need to be lectured about this most basic level of information concerning Chalcedon. I know that the Council of Chalcedon was made up almost entirely of Eastern bishops–all of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils were. I also know that the position of Pope Leo held the day–in no place have I denied that, or even hinted at a denial. Furthemore, anyone who knows anything about the history of the Ecumenical Councils knows that the (Eastern) Orthodox accept the Tome of Leo, since they accept the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and honor Leo as a saint. I’m trying to point out (and you don’t need Romanides for this, just look in the sessions of the Council itself), is that the bishops at Chalcedon didn’t just automatically accept the Tome of St. Leo just because it came from the Bishop of Rome. Rather, they accepted it as an authoritative voice on the matter of the Eutychian heresy (and christology in general), because, having heard it, they recognized it as a true statement of the faith of the Church as articulated both by the Council of Nicea and the Council of Ephesus, as well as by the christological teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was instrumental in shaping the teachings of the Council of Ephesus.

 

[paul_c]

Thank you, but I really don’t need to be lectured about this most basic level of information concerning Chalcedon. I know that the Council of Chalcedon was made up almost entirely of Eastern bishops–all of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils were. I also know that the position of Pope Leo held the day–in no place have I denied that, or even hinted at a denial. Furthemore, anyone who knows anything about the history of the Ecumenical Councils knows that the (Eastern) Orthodox accept the Tome of Leo, since they accept the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and honor Leo as a saint. I’m trying to point out (and you don’t need Romanides for this, just look in the sessions of the Council itself), is that the bishops at Chalcedon didn’t just automatically accept the Tome of St. Leo just because it came from the Bishop of Rome. Rather, they accepted it as an authoritative voice on the matter of the Eutychian heresy (and christology in general), because, having heard it, they recognized it as a true statement of the faith of the Church as articulated both by the Council of Nicea and the Council of Ephesus, as well as by the christological teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was instrumental in shaping the teachings of the Council of Ephesus.

What you say may be true, but keep in mind that Leo was able to Nullify the 449 Council of Ephesus on his own authority.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What you say may be true, but keep in mind that Leo was able to Nullify the 449 Council of Ephesus on his own authority.

There is no evidence that this claim was widely accepted in the East. When Dioscoros was brought into the assembly at Chalcedon, for example, he was not treated as one already guilty of improperly conducting a council (as Pope Leo and his legates would have had it) but as a defendant against the charge that Second Ephesus was conducted improperly (brought against him by a real plaintiff). Likewise, when the papal legates demanded that Dioscoros not sit as a member of the council, because the bishop of Rome instructed them not to allow for it, the senate rejected this, demanding that Dioscoros first be charged of something before being denied a seat at the council (as a defendant cannot also act as a judge).

 

[PIERRE4]

Can you all pls abstain from using the term ’ Monophysites’ which is very inaccurate and quite offensive? Oriental Churches are called Metaphysites not Monophysites!

Ultimately, we all believe in the same thing whether we are Chalcedonians or Non-Chalcedonians; the difference in the formulation of the Cyrialian dogma is more at the levels of phraseology.

That said, Chalcedon proved to be a fatal council as it encouraged Byzantine persecution of Syriacs and Copts (notice that Imperial power was used to kill and enforce a Christian council’s resolution- hardly the work for the Holy Spirit here!) which opened the gates of the Near East to the first desert storm of Islam.

 

[paul_c]

Can you all pls abstain from using the term ’ Monophysites’ which is very inaccurate and quite offensive? Oriental Churches are called Metaphysites not Monophysites!

Ultimately, we all believe in the same thing whether we are Chalcedonians or Non-Chalcedonians; the difference in the formulation of the Cyrialian dogma is more at the levels of phraseology.

That said, Chalcedon proved to be a fatal council as it encouraged Byzantine persecution of Syriacs and Copts (notice that Imperial power was used to kill and enforce a Christian council’s resolution- hardly the work for the Holy Spirit here!) which opened the gates of the Near East to the first desert storm of Islam.

Sorry if I offended you. Can you help me understand something, though. From your perspective, why was it that the oriental churches chose to break ranks with the rest of the Church if it was only a matter of phraseology. And why don’t they return now? What are the impediments.

 

[PIERRE4]

Dear brother in Christ,

No offense; do not worry. I am a Syriac Orthodox that attends mass at the RC Church in addition to the Eastern and Oriental churches (yes i receive communion in all 3); you can say that I am imbued with Ecumenical zeal and would have no issues being in full communion with Rome (this is a personal opinion though).

the aforesaid ‘phraseology problem’ of Chalcedon came with persecution that created a form of local nationalisms in the Levant and Egypt; as I said this opened the door for Islam, which was helped initially by the indigenous Christians. The Western Church instead of fending for their coreligionists in the East, just attempted to convert them thus creating more divisions with the Uniates and more animosity etc.

To reach full union, I believe somehow that the ultimate role of the papacy has to be defined to factor in the other heads of local Churches while keeping the ‘Primus interpares’ formula in place. IMHO the problem, all other things being equal, is the seat of Peter and its relationship with the other heads.
Sincerely