Tome of Leo.

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Hello all,

Lately I have, to my great regret, researched the council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. However I cannot but notice that the Tome is either nestorian or just very ambiguous. The fact that Nestorius said the tome described his view doesn’t make it any better. Some examples:

“For each form does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.”

and

"So if he accepts the Christian faith and does not turn a deaf ear to the preaching of the gospel, let him consider what nature it was that hung, pierced with nails, on the wood of the cross. "

How can ‘natures’ even succumb to injuries or perform miracles? How can natures be pierced with nails? Doesn’t Leo introduce two hypostaseis here? I’m at loss how to interpret it.

And than compare this:

“When you cross-examined Eutyches and he replied, “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but I confess one nature after the union”, I am amazed that such an absurd and corrupt declaration of faith was not very severely censured by the judges; and that an extremely foolish statement was disregarded, as if nothing whatever offensive had been heard. It is just as wicked to say that the only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the incarnation as it is abominable to claim that there was a single nature in him after the Word was made flesh.”

with this:

“Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm the joining into a unity by saying he was of two natures, but after the union, we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons, but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have said, that there is one nature of the Word [of God] made flesh.” [St. Cyril to Succensus, letter 45:6]

Another question, is the Tome infallible according to Catholics?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’m no theologian, so I’m ill-equipped to discuss this in responsible detail, but I look forward to reading the ensuing discussion.

In any case, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Council Fathers of Chalcedon, after studying the Tome of St. Leo, unanimously acclaim that its teachings are in full conformity with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria?

I know the Oriental Orthodox don’t accept Chalcedon, but the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox do. May I ask, Credo ergo sum, which form of Orthodoxy you’re considering? And if it’s the Chalcedonian variety, then unless I’m wrong about what I said above, aren’t you fully expecting to find out why Chalcedonian Orthodoxy accepts the Tome of St. Leo?

He is, after all, a saint in both the East and the West. I’m as suspicious of the (what seems to me to be egregiously revisionist) charge that he was a Nestorian as I am of equally ridiculous charges, like the one that Pope Liberius was an Arian, etc. (and in the East, that’s Pope St. Liberius).

Another question, is the Tome infallible according to Catholics?

Good question; I don’t know. I think the answer lies in what was said about it at Chalcedon…

Anyway, I look forward to hearing more responses from people more knowledgeable than I.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Some examples:

“For each form does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.”

and

"So if he accepts the Christian faith and does not turn a deaf ear to the preaching of the gospel, let him consider what nature it was that hung, pierced with nails, on the wood of the cross. "

That said, I do understand why these seem somewhat Nestorian. Out of context, though, I honestly don’t think there’s anything useful I can say about them, since I don’t know the source and the context. I don’t even know if the translation is good.

But to bring my response full-circle, I feel ill-qualified to set myself up as judge over such things…

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

In any case, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Council Fathers of Chalcedon, after studying the Tome of St. Leo, unanimously acclaim that its teachings are in full conformity with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria?

Yes, and one of the commision who checked it against the Christology (12 chapters) was…
the deposed heretic Theodoret of Cyrrus who wrote this.

He is, after all, a saint in both the East and the West. I’m as suspicious of the (what seems to me to be egregiously revisionist) charge that he was a Nestorian as I am of equally ridiculous charges, like the one that Pope Liberius was an Arian, etc. (and in the East, that’s Pope St. Liberius).

I think the Tome was seen as heretical pretty quickly after Chalcedon by the orientals. Not really revisionism.

I know the Oriental Orthodox don’t accept Chalcedon, but the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox do. May I ask, Credo ergo sum, which form of Orthodoxy you’re considering? And if it’s the Chalcedonian variety, then unless I’m wrong about what I said above, aren’t you fully expecting to find out why Chalcedonian Orthodoxy accepts the Tome of St. Leo?

Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. And of course Catholicism but it’s pretty hard to figure out who’s right. I have been researching the Orthodox-Catholic thing for a while and now wanted to see what the Orientals had to say. I wonder if there are Copts on this forum.

I honestly don’t think there’s anything useful I can say about them, since I don’t know the source and the context. I don’t even know if the translation is good.

I got them from here and here and here.

Good question; I don’t know. I think the answer lies in what was said about it at Chalcedon…

Or is it an ex-cathedra statement from the pope?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Yes, and one of the commision who checked it against the Christology (12 chapters) was…
the deposed heretic Theodoret of Cyrrus who wrote this.

Oh, I see.

To what extent does that matter? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I honestly don’t know. Does the fact that Chalcedon came to be accepted by Latin and Eastern Christianity mean that, essentially, the eventual personal heresy of one of its council fathers doesn’t matter? Or does it actually matter?

I think the Tome was seen as heretical pretty quickly after Chalcedon by the orientals. Not really revisionism.

Right, of course. I fully acknowledge that. I had in mind the Easterns when I wrote that, but of course I admit that the Orientals rejected it.

Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. And of course Catholicism but it’s pretty hard to figure out who’s right. I have been researching the Orthodox-Catholic thing for a while and now wanted to see what the Orientals had to say.

Ah, that makes perfect sense then.

I got them from here and here and here.

Thanks. As I admitted before, though, I don’t know the context and I’m not a theologian… or an Oriental. I think I’ll just wait for some of our forum’s Coptic Christians to show up and weigh in… hopefully some knowledgeable Easterns (like Philip, Hesychios, etc.) and Latins (like Vico) will participate, too.

In terms of Miaphysite/Oriental Christians, I’d love to hear both dzheremi’s and Mardukm’s take on this topic…

Or is it an ex-cathedra statement from the pope?

That possibility is what I was hinting at. Not sure if it meets the criteria, though, since I personally have not sat down to read the Tome itself. By my earlier comments, I meant that the way the Council Fathers of Chalcedon reacted to it might be a clue as to how it was intended.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Oh, I see.

To what extent does that matter? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I honestly don’t know. Does the fact that Chalcedon came to be accepted by Latin and Eastern Christianity mean that, essentially, the eventual personal heresy of one of its council fathers doesn’t matter? Or does it actually matter?

I dont know. I guess it all depends on the correctness of the tome and whether it is an ex cathedra statement.

Anyway, part of me hopes that the Catholics are right because the nearest Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox churches are an half hour away while I can walk to the nearest Catholic one, bad reason, I know. But I’ll be searching for the True Church anyway.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“When you cross-examined Eutyches and he replied, “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but I confess one nature after the union”, I am amazed that such an absurd and corrupt declaration of faith was not very severely censured by the judges; and that an extremely foolish statement was disregarded, as if nothing whatever offensive had been heard. It is just as wicked to say that the only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the incarnation as it is abominable to claim that there was a single nature in him after the Word was made flesh.”

Did you read the entire letter?

Heres the letter…

google.com/url?q=http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/4ecumen1.htm&sa=U&ei=pIDTT6bSDIis9ASKx_3bAw&ved=0CBEQFjAA&sig2=FMWCcrasSX4JFDcmjwe24A&usg=AFQjCNGvAcrwqxZ_gngZSZkGqRaLyv2i6g

Heres the remainder or Part II

google.com/url?q=http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/4ecumen2.htm&sa=U&ei=pIDTT6bSDIis9ASKx_3bAw&ved=0CBQQFjAB&sig2=DFDJY8dzAgYqOQ_0kuLzdg&usg=AFQjCNE5p0YoFgOY-pFO6M7lW51T0hFD0Q

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Did you read the entire letter?

I did.

 

[dzheremi]

Hello all,

Lately I have, to my great regret, researched the council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo.

Hahaha. Best opening line to a post ever. I know exactly how you feel! To delve deeply into Christological debates (note: not Christology!) is a precursor to madness.

“For each form does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.”

and

"So if he accepts the Christian faith and does not turn a deaf ear to the preaching of the gospel, let him consider what nature it was that hung, pierced with nails, on the wood of the cross. "

I know where I’m posting, so out of respect for the faith of those who use this site, I will only say that you have seized upon two quotes that are illustrative of the problems that the Oriental Orthodox have with the Tome. For a balanced and extremely well-written defense of the anti-Chalcedonian position, the historical text par excellence is Fr. V.C. Samuel’s “The Council of Chalcedon Revisited”, which has been republished by the Oriental Orthodox Library (based in the UK under the supervision of Fr. Peter Farrington of the British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate) and is available here. It may seem a bit on the expensive side, but it is well worth it, and Fr. Peter often offers discounts on books in this series, so watch for those. Fr. Peter also does a podcast on the Oriental Orthodox faith that touches upon this issue and others relating to the OO communion that is worth checking out, if you have the time.

“Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm the joining into a unity by saying he was of two natures, but after the union, we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons, but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have said, that there is one nature of the Word [of God] made flesh.” [St. Cyril to Succensus, letter 45:6]

Yes, and there are more damning quotes that can be taken from St. Cyril’s letters, if we wish to go down that road. I don’t. Suffice it to say that though the Chalcedonians argue(d) that they were preserving traditional Cyrilian Christology at the Council, the anti-Chalcedonians are not convinced that this is what actually happened there.

Is it any wonder that we remain divided over this council and this tome? While I had honestly given Chalcedon zero thought prior to attending my first Coptic liturgy (like you, I thought it best not to delve deeply into it on my own, so as to keep my mind free of prejudices as much as is possible), it was after that liturgy that Fr. Marcus (one of the two priests who serve the Coptic community here in Albuquerque) sat me down and gave me a 30 minute crash course in Coptic history, which included a few references to the Tome of Leo as being “full of heresies” and the like. A bit shocking for a first time visitor, but such is the zeal of the Copts I suppose! Later councils, it should be said, present less problems for us, primarily because they deal with issues that arose for the Byzantines that did not affect us at the same time, such as iconoclasm. May the Lord heal our divisions.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It boils down to how the council received the tome. They read it, and deliberated upon its Orthodoxy, trying to find if it could be interpreted as being in concord with Cyril of Alexandria. The language of dual agency in the tome must be understood to mean that the Word acts in certain ways according to each nature, so that he works miracles according to his divinity and suffers humiliation according to his humanity, but not in such a manner that the natures are reified (made actual things) outside of the one hypostasis of the Word. The two natures can be known only in contemplation, which is why the council’s definition of faith says that Jesus Christ, the Word, is made known in two natures, rather than saying that He exists in two natures. The next council, the Second Council of Constantinople, makes this all quite clear, by condemning the affirmation ‘in two natures’, if it is not understood in the sense of being in contemplation only and allowing for the affirmation ‘from two natures’, only if it is understood without a mingling or confusion of natures.

 

[kwortham]

I dont know. I guess it all depends on the correctness of the tome and whether it is an ex cathedra statement.

Anyway, part of me hopes that the Catholics are right because the nearest Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox churches are an half hour away while I can walk to the nearest Catholic one, bad reason, I know. But I’ll be searching for the True Church anyway.

If you do not have a copy of Volume 14 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series, then you are going to have to study this by reading online. Of course, you are already starting to wade into it. Volume 12 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series contains the letters of Leo the Great exchanged between him, Eutyches and Flavian in this matter. These exchanges begin on page 32 (the page numbers have not changed in over one hundred years of printing by two different publishers) in Volume 12 and the Tome letter begins on page 38 (Letter XXVIII).

Volume 14 contains the Tome on page 254 in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. What is preserved from this council starts on page 242 and concludes on page 295.

Here are a few things to read:

Eutyches sought protection from Leo against being anathematized (Letter XXI of Volume 12). In so doing he protrays himself as being orthodox in faith and dutifully upholding the faith of the Nicene council. Leo is open to protecting Eutyches and apparently dispatches a letter to Flavian to give and account of himself in this matter. Flavian responds by letter (XXII). This letter conveys some information about Eutyches and the minutes from the proceedings in regards to this matter. This information was not enough, so Leo demands full disclosure. That disclosure is made and this culminates in the Council of Chalcedon.

Now, if you are reading all of this, then you will see that Nestorius tried to shield himself from being anathematized by pulling excerpts from the Tome of Leo (just as protestants do when they isolate verses from the Bible to back up their claims). In other words, Nestorius tried to deflect from his guilt against orthodoxy by showing how he had beliefs in common with Leo. It was his hope that the Council would make the illogical jump to believing that Nestorius fully held to all the orthodox beliefs in the Tome. This strategy did not work out for Nestorius.

It is not logical to assume that since Nestorius held some beliefs of Leo, then Leo must have been a nestorian. That logic is the equivalent of saying that if a rapist is devoutly anti-murder, then everyone that is anti-murder is a rapist.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

In other words, Nestorius tried to deflect from his guilt against orthodoxy by showing how he had beliefs in common with Leo. It was his hope that the Council would make the illogical jump to believing that Nestorius fully held to all the orthodox beliefs in the Tome. This strategy did not work out for Nestorius.

Because he died on his way to Chalcedon.

If you do not have a copy of Volume 14 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series, then you are going to have to study this by reading online. Of course, you are already starting to wade into it. Volume 12 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series contains the letters of Leo the Great exchanged between him, Eutyches and Flavian in this matter. These exchanges begin on page 32 (the page numbers have not changed in over one hundred years of printing by two different publishers) in Volume 12 and the Tome letter begins on page 38 (Letter XXVIII).

Volume 14 contains the Tome on page 254 in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. What is preserved from this council starts on page 242 and concludes on page 295.

Here are a few things to read:

Eutyches sought protection from Leo against being anathematized (Letter XXI of Volume 12). In so doing he protrays himself as being orthodox in faith and dutifully upholding the faith of the Nicene council. Leo is open to protecting Eutyches and apparently dispatches a letter to Flavian to give and account of himself in this matter. Flavian responds by letter (XXII). This letter conveys some information about Eutyches and the minutes from the proceedings in regards to this matter. This information was not enough, so Leo demands full disclosure. That disclosure is made and this culminates in the Council of Chalcedon.

Now, if you are reading all of this, then you will see that Nestorius tried to shield himself from being anathematized by pulling excerpts from the Tome of Leo (just as protestants do when they isolate verses from the Bible to back up their claims). In other words, Nestorius tried to deflect from his guilt against orthodoxy by showing how he had beliefs in common with Leo. It was his hope that the Council would make the illogical jump to believing that Nestorius fully held to all the orthodox beliefs in the Tome. This strategy did not work out for Nestorius.

It is not logical to assume that since Nestorius held some beliefs of Leo, then Leo must have been a nestorian. That logic is the equivalent of saying that if a rapist is devoutly anti-murder, then everyone that is anti-murder is a rapist.

Yes, I have read it. In fact, the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are almost the only thing I have on my e-reader. I just noticed that, for some reason, Leo seems nice and looking for a constructive solution to the problem until Alexandria gets involved.

It boils down to how the council received the tome. They read it, and deliberated upon its Orthodoxy, trying to find if it could be interpreted as bring in concord with Cyril of Alexandria. The language of dual agency in the tome must be understood to mean that the Word acts in certain ways according to each nature, so that he works miracles according to his divinity and suffers humiliation according to his humanity, but not in such a manner that the natures are reified (made actual things) outside of the one hypostasis of the Word. The two natures can be known only in contemplation, which is why the council’s definition of faith says that Jesus Christ, the Word, is made known in two natures, rather than saying that He exists in two natures. The next council, the Second Council of Constantinople, makes this all quite clear, by condemning the affirmation ‘in two natures’, if it is not understood in the sense of being in contemplation only and allowing for the affirmation ‘from two natures’, only if it is understood without a mingling or confusion of natures.

Indeed, tei theoria monei. However, the Fifth Council was and is still viewed with a great hostility in the West. Both by Protestants and Catholics.

I sincerely believe that the EO and it’s Christology is Orthodox (nomen est omen), especially when viewed in the light of the 5th Council and how you explain it indeed proves that the Tome can be explained in a very orthodox manner. But the Tome is still dangerously ambiguous and I don’t know whether Leo meant it in such a way as it was explained by the Neo-Chalcedonians, especially his friendship with the likes of Ibas and Theodoret is pretty suspect, and it is no surprise that from 451-553 so many people rejected it and still do. That’s one of the reason I wanted to know if it is infallible according to the 1871 RC dogma. I know far less about RC Christology than I do about OO and EO Christology that’s why this thread is more geared towards the RC and how they explain it.

 

[kwortham]

I dont know. I guess it all depends on the correctness of the tome and whether it is an ex cathedra statement.

Anyway, part of me hopes that the Catholics are right because the nearest Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox churches are an half hour away while I can walk to the nearest Catholic one, bad reason, I know. But I’ll be searching for the True Church anyway.

Of course, the council lauded the Tome and held it to be the faith of the fathers. They considered the Tome as the voice of Saint Peter. This is where the problem with EO christians begins:

“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 of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties. The bishops then, one by one, spoke in favour of the deposition of Dioscorus, but usually on the ground of his refusal to appear when thrice summoned.]” - Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 14, pages 259-260

As you can see underlined in bold above, this is the true thing that rubs eastern types the wrong way. They should really take it up with Christ on the judgement day. Regardless, most of the councils addressed the See of Rome in this respect. Volume 14 is full of examples of this. I don’t know for sure, but I bet that every council which acknowledged the See of Rome in this manner is questioned by the EO Christians.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Indeed, tei theoria monei. However, the Fifth Council was and is still viewed with a great hostility in the West. Both by Protestants and Catholics.

Unfortunately that is true.

I sincerely believe that the EO and it’s Christology is Orthodox (nomen est omen), especially when viewed in the light of the 5th Council and how you explain it indeed proves that the Tome can be explained in a very orthodox manner. But the Tome is still dangerously ambiguous and I don’t know whether Leo meant it in such a way as it was explained by the Neo-Chalcedonians, especially his friendship with the likes of Ibas and Theodoret is pretty suspect, and it is no surprise that from 451-553 so many people rejected it and still do. That’s one of the reason I wanted to know if it is infallible according to the 1871 RC dogma. I know far less about RC Christology than I do about OO and EO Christology that’s why this thread is more geared towards the RC and how they explain it.

I see. For the Eastern Orthodox, I think the importance of Chalcedon was in its affirmation that the natures do not mingle, transforming the Word into something that is not truly God or truly man (the blasphemous teaching of Eutyches). The Tome of Leo is almost an after-thought. My ignorance of Roman Catholic Christology, however, is similar to yours, so I might just have to stick around and watch this thread unfold.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Of course, the council lauded the Tome and held it to be the faith of the fathers. They considered the Tome as the voice of Saint Peter. This is where the problem with EO christians begins:

“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 of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties. The bishops then, one by one, spoke in favour of the deposition of Dioscorus, but usually on the ground of his refusal to appear when thrice summoned.]” - Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 14, pages 259-260

Funny that on the same page it says:

*“The most blessed bishops of Illyria [that is within Rome’s jurisdiction -me] said: Let those who contradict be made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who contradict, let them go to Rome”. *

And:

*"Paschasinus and Lucentius the most reverend bishops and Boniface a presbyter, vicars of the Apostolic See of Rome, said: If they do not agree to the letter of that apostolic and blessed man, Pope Leo, give directions that we be given our letters of dismission, and let a synod be held there . "

“[and the Emperor imposed this with the threat that otherwise they all should be sent home and a new council called in the West. Even this did not make them yield ]”*

 

[kwortham]

Because he died on his way to Chalcedon.

My memory at age 46 is not quite as sharp as it used to be. You are correct.

Yes, I have read it. In fact, the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are almost the only thing I have on my e-reader. I just noticed that, for some reason, Leo seems nice and looking for a constructive solution to the problem until Alexandria gets involved.

All of Leo’s letters are nice, even when he was addressing someone that should get the sternest of tongue lashings. Even when he was giving orders, he gave them in a humble tone.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Of course, the council lauded the Tome and held it to be the faith of the fathers. They considered the Tome as the voice of Saint Peter. This is where the problem with EO christians begins:

They did so after deliberating on whether the Tome was orthodox in faith. The acts of the council make that quite clear.

“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 of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties. The bishops then, one by one, spoke in favour of the deposition of Dioscorus, but usually on the ground of his refusal to appear when thrice summoned.]” - Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 14, pages 259-260

I see nothing there that is particularly objectionable. It is your church’s interpretation of that document and its honorific language which is incorrect and objectionable. Nobody would ever presume to think that the similar honorific language used for Archbishop Dioscoros of Alexandria at the Council means that he was an infallible bishop of bishops with universal jurisdiction, yet your church fixates on the florid language used for Archbishop Leo of Rome as being evidence somehow for the very same thing.

As you can see underlined in bold above, this is the true thing that rubs eastern types the wrong way. They should really take it up with Christ on the judgement day. Regardless, most of the councils addressed the See of Rome in this respect. Volume 14 is full of examples of this. I don’t know for sure, but I bet that every council which acknowledged the See of Rome in this manner is questioned by the EO Christians.

Nope, not in the slightest, because we have read the acts in full, and are aware of what language is honorific and what language is not. The only thing that bothers me is that you presume to know what Christ will do or say when He comes again in glory to judge the heart of each man. I was unaware that your Church taught that one could have certainty on the matter.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

My memory at age 46 is not quite as sharp as it used to be. You are correct.

Ah well, I have it somewhat easier with my 17 years.

All of Leo’s letters are nice, even when he was addressing someone that should get the sternest of tongue lashings. Even when he was giving orders, he gave them in a humble tone.

“Is it not clear which side you ought to support and which to oppose, if the Church of Alexandria, which has always been the “house of prayer,” is not now to be “a den of robbers?” For surely it is manifest that through the cruellest and maddest savagery all the light of the heavenly mysteries is extinguished. The offering of the sacrifice is cut off, the hallowing of the chrism has failed, and from the murderous hands of wicked men all the mysteries have withdrawn themselves. Nor can there be any manner of doubt what decree ought to be passed on these then.” (Leo to the Emperor, speaking about the Coptic Orthodox Church, Letter CLVI)

oh and this one:

“Nor need we now state all that makes Timothy accursed”

(Leo to the Emperor, speaking about Patriarch Timothy Aelurus, Letter CLXIX.)

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ah well, I have it somewhat easier with my 17 years.

“Is it not clear which side you ought to support and which to oppose, if the Church of Alexandria, which has always been the “house of prayer,” is not now to be “a den of robbers?” For surely it is manifest that through the cruellest and maddest savagery all the light of the heavenly mysteries is extinguished. The offering of the sacrifice is cut off, the hallowing of the chrism has failed, and from the murderous hands of wicked men all the mysteries have withdrawn themselves. Nor can there be any manner of doubt what decree ought to be passed on these then.” (Leo to the Emperor, speaking about the Coptic Orthodox Church, Letter CLVI)

oh and this one:

“Nor need we now state all that makes Timothy accursed”

(Leo to the Emperor, speaking about Patriarch Timothy Aelurus, Letter CLXIX.)

Poor Timothy the Cat. In Archbishop Leo’s defense, Timothy did not have very nice things to say about him or his tome either.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Poor Timothy the Cat. In Archbishop Leo’s defense, Timothy did not have very nice things to say about him or his tome either.

Yep, Timmy the Weasel wasn’t the nicest person around either