K
- Status
C
Credo_ergo_sum
Guest
Naw, the Illyrians were pretty vocal about their opposition to the Tome and Leo. Cardinal Newman interpreted it thus:
"Notwithstanding, the Pope’s Legates gained their point through the support of the Emperor Marcian, who had succeeded Theodosius. A fresh committee was obtained under the threat that, if they resisted, the Council should be transferred to the West. Some voices were raised against this measure; the cries were repeated against the Roman party, “They are Nestorians; let them go to Rome.”
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Actually, the Illyrian bishops are accusing Rome of being Nestorian. They had a long standing suspicion of the orthodoxy of the see of Rome.
D
dzheremi
Guest
In searching the Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia in hopes of finding record of responses to Leo’s insults as quoted in this thread, the Encyclopedia (which can hardly be seen as presenting an OO viewpoint, despite its title; see below where it repeats the thoughtless accusation that we are “Monophysite”…ugh) records this interesting tidbit:
This is the first time that I have read that Dioscoros was commemorated in any part of the EO church. Frankly I find it hard to believe, though at the same time very, very amusing.
Here I was, prepared to say “Yeah, well, same to you, Leo!”, when it appears that much post-Chalcedonian history already says that for me. 
Other parts of the entry are much easier to believe and historically verified (e.g., Leo’s complaining about the elevation of Constantinople being largely ignored), so it is not completely outside of the realm of possibility that Leo might similarly be disregarded in Alexandria by the EO in turn, as he was sticking his nose where it did not belong, and his patronizing advice (as the Encyclopedia puts it!) and protestations were not appreciated.
Frankly, guys, no matter what you think about his tome, it is hard for me to see what’s so “Great” about the guy…though of course individual Patriarchs are not immune from being jerks, no matter their See.
If you read carefully the Encyclopedia entry, it is hard not to come away with the sense that the Roman Bishop was overreaching in his authority in asserting “uncompromisingly the primacy of the (Roman) papacy” – something which I’m sure the OO and EO can agree on despite our other disagreements. (I suppose you could say that were rejecting the Roman Papal claims long before it was cool. )
Note to moderators: While tackling serious issues, a large amount of this post is written with my heretical non-Chalcedonian tongue firmly in cheek, hence all the smilies.
(read it in context of the full entry on Leo here)
This is the first time that I have read that Dioscoros was commemorated in any part of the EO church. Frankly I find it hard to believe, though at the same time very, very amusing.
Here I was, prepared to say “Yeah, well, same to you, Leo!”, when it appears that much post-Chalcedonian history already says that for me. Other parts of the entry are much easier to believe and historically verified (e.g., Leo’s complaining about the elevation of Constantinople being largely ignored), so it is not completely outside of the realm of possibility that Leo might similarly be disregarded in Alexandria by the EO in turn, as he was sticking his nose where it did not belong, and his patronizing advice (as the Encyclopedia puts it!) and protestations were not appreciated.Frankly, guys, no matter what you think about his tome, it is hard for me to see what’s so “Great” about the guy…though of course individual Patriarchs are not immune from being jerks, no matter their See.
If you read carefully the Encyclopedia entry, it is hard not to come away with the sense that the Roman Bishop was overreaching in his authority in asserting “uncompromisingly the primacy of the (Roman) papacy” – something which I’m sure the OO and EO can agree on despite our other disagreements. (I suppose you could say that were rejecting the Roman Papal claims long before it was cool. )Note to moderators: While tackling serious issues, a large amount of this post is written with my heretical non-Chalcedonian tongue firmly in cheek, hence all the smilies.
C
Credo_ergo_sum
Guest
Indeed, Leo I thought he had universal jurisdiction and infallibility. Not that the EO or the OO of the time believed it of course 
But it shows those dogma’s didn’t fall out of the sky in the second millenium.
Here is a letter from 445 where Leo (unsuccesfully) tried to boss around the Church of Alexandria. Very funny.
But it shows those dogma’s didn’t fall out of the sky in the second millenium.Here is a letter from 445 where Leo (unsuccesfully) tried to boss around the Church of Alexandria. Very funny.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Yes, I have read that letter before, and much hilarity ensued. When I was still RC, I probably would have read it according to their worldview which takes the antiquity of the letter and the views presented therein as evidence of their being the tradition of the Church™. Of course, it was when I started wondering about the responses of the recipients of such letters that the RC view really started to seem…well, let’s just say odd. It is odd. Surely both such letters and their responses from all the Patriarchs (East and West) must form the entirety of tradition in so far as it can be gleaned from the wisdom contained therein regarding the doctrinal steadfastness of the senders and respondents, and then it is the individual’s responsibility to determine from a fair hearing of both which side seems to be attempting to introduce a new thing (e.g., the Roman “Pope” can boss around the Alexandrian Pope), and who is trying to defend against novelty. In that, I have made my choice, and not without many readings of such exchanges.
(We can also fit the Tome of Leo itself in this rigorous framework, if we do not focus on only the Council’s potentially problematic declaration of its Orthodoxy, but also on the reasoning of those who were unwilling to go along with it – hence my recommendation of Fr. Peter’s podcast and V.C. Samuel’s excellent book in another reply. Why not arm yourself with all knowledge, I figure.)
When I was still RC, I probably would have read it according to their worldview which takes the antiquity of the letter and the views presented therein as evidence of their being the tradition of the Church™. Of course, it was when I started wondering about the responses of the recipients of such letters that the RC view really started to seem…well, let’s just say odd. It is odd. Surely both such letters and their responses from all the Patriarchs (East and West) must form the entirety of tradition in so far as it can be gleaned from the wisdom contained therein regarding the doctrinal steadfastness of the senders and respondents, and then it is the individual’s responsibility to determine from a fair hearing of both which side seems to be attempting to introduce a new thing (e.g., the Roman “Pope” can boss around the Alexandrian Pope), and who is trying to defend against novelty. In that, I have made my choice, and not without many readings of such exchanges.(We can also fit the Tome of Leo itself in this rigorous framework, if we do not focus on only the Council’s potentially problematic declaration of its Orthodoxy, but also on the reasoning of those who were unwilling to go along with it – hence my recommendation of Fr. Peter’s podcast and V.C. Samuel’s excellent book in another reply. Why not arm yourself with all knowledge, I figure.)
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
If I recall, Patriarch Dioscoros was never condemned for heresy at Chalcedon, just misconduct. It would make sense that a Chalcedonian patriarch in Alexandria would have little problem commemorating a man he considered to be his predecessor, who was not anathematized or declared a heretic. Of course, people also had a different view of councils at that time, so his actions might have indicated that he agreed with the Chalcedonian definition, but personally disagreed with the deposition of Dioscoros. Who knows? All speculation aside, that is a pretty interesting bit of history, that I had never seen before.In searching the Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia in hopes of finding record of responses to Leo’s insults as quoted in this thread, the Encyclopedia (which can hardly be seen as presenting an OO viewpoint, despite its title; see below where it repeats the thoughtless accusation that we are “Monophysite”…ugh) records this interesting tidbit:
(read it in context of the full entry on Leo here)
This is the first time that I have read that Dioscoros was commemorated in any part of the EO church. Frankly I find it hard to believe, though at the same time very, very amusing.
Frankly, guys, no matter what you think about his tome, it is hard for me to see what’s so “Great” about the guy…though of course individual Patriarchs are not immune from being jerks, no matter their See.
Note to moderators: While tackling serious issues, a large amount of this post is written with my heretical non-Chalcedonian tongue firmly in cheek, hence all the smilies.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Agreed on all counts, Cavaradossi. In teaching Coptic history (or at least in teaching me Coptic history), our priests are very careful to emphasize that St. Dioscoros was not deposed for holding any heretical view (including, of course, the Eutychian heresy that is often leveled at us by those who don’t know our history, but know later polemical distortions of our history), but for procedural reasons. In failing to appear before the council, it appeared as though he admitted guilt in what was charged against him. This is, Coptic history teaches us, plainly not possible, as St. Dioscoros was under house arrest at the time-- he could not have attended the council.
But anyway…yes, I’m glad to have found that bit of history today. It makes me happy and gives me hope for the future. If we were united to this degree after Chalcedon that even the Chalcedonian Patriarch who was meant to replace ours still commemorated him in the diptych, what does that say about subsequent imaginings of Chalcedon as the crucible in which the “true” Orthodox Church was formed and all heretics cast off from it forever and ever, in perpetuity throughout the universe? Surely these must be at least in part re-imaginings, based more on the hardening of our respective positions across the subsequent centuries than what the recorded history of the immediate aftermath of the Council tells us.
But anyway…yes, I’m glad to have found that bit of history today. It makes me happy and gives me hope for the future. If we were united to this degree after Chalcedon that even the Chalcedonian Patriarch who was meant to replace ours still commemorated him in the diptych, what does that say about subsequent imaginings of Chalcedon as the crucible in which the “true” Orthodox Church was formed and all heretics cast off from it forever and ever, in perpetuity throughout the universe? Surely these must be at least in part re-imaginings, based more on the hardening of our respective positions across the subsequent centuries than what the recorded history of the immediate aftermath of the Council tells us.
C
Credo_ergo_sum
Guest
*"The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Dioscorus said
that the reason for Flavian’s deposition was that he said there are two
natures, but the definition has “from two natures”.’
. Anatolius the most devout archbishop of Constantinople said: ‘It
was not because of the faith that Dioscorus was deposed. He was deposed
because he broke off communion with the lord Archbishop Leo and was
summoned a third time and did not come.’"* (The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Richard Price; Session V, p. 198)
"Aetius archdeacon and protonotary said: ‘As you [Paschasinus]
ordered, already before the session the deacons Domninus and Cyriacus
went from here to the most devout Bishop Dioscorus as to all the other most
sacred bishops, and bade him come here in person. But he declared that,
although he wished to attend, his guards, so he claimed, would not let him.’
…]
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I am under guard. Let them say if
I am allowed to come.’
Acacius bishop of Ariaratheia said: ‘We were not sent to the hallowed
magistriani but to your sacredness, to ask you to take the trouble to repair
to the holy council assembled in the martyrium of the holy martyr Euphemia.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I am ready to appear at the holy
and ecumenical council, but I am prevented.’
Atticus bishop of Zela said: ‘A plaint against your holiness has been
presented just now to the holy and ecumenical council by the most God-beloved Bishop
Eusebius. The great and holy council has informed your
holiness through us that you should appear and make a defence against the
charges.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I have said once already that I too
have an intention to go to the holy and ecumenical council, but as your Godbelovedness
can see, I am prevented by the hallowed magistriani and
scholarii.’" (The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Richard Price; Session III, p. 44-45)*
So, you are both very correct. He was deposed for not appearing, not because he was a heretic. But he couldn’t come because he was under house arrest. Soldiers prevented him on order of Emperor Marcian.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Of course. You’re right; we mustn’t choose based on convenience.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.
Thanks, Cavaradossi; that makes sense!
Not to nitpick your language, but I find it truly misleading to refer to the pope of Rome as “an infallible bishop of bishops” for two reasons:
(a) As I think you know, Catholic teaching is not that the bishop of Rome himself, as a man, or even as a bishop, is infallible. It is rather that he is capable, if he so chooses, of personally exercising the infallibility of the Church. That is an important distinction.
(b) Calling him a “bishop of bishops” implies that his relationship to the other bishops of the Catholic Church is analogous to that of a bishop to the faithful of his diocese. Not so; that’s neo-Ultramontanism, which I’m convinced is unfaithful to Vatican I and Vatican II. His relationship to the other bishops of the Catholic Church is better compared to that of a Metropolitan bishop to the other bishops of his synod.
K
kwortham
Guest
It just does not read that way. You are making it sound as if they were saying let all of those heretics go back to Rome where they belong. The logic for that conclusion is unsupported.
"Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol, said: We ask that the definition be read again and that those who dissent from it, and will not sign, may go about their business; for we give our consent to these things which have been so beautifully drafted, and make no criticisms.
The most blessed bishops of Illyria said: Let those who contradict be made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who contradict, let them go to Rome.
The most magnificent and most glorious judges said: Dioscorus acknowledged that he accepted the expression “of two natures,” but not that there were two natures. But the most holy archbishop Leo says that there are two natures in Christ unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly united in the one only-begotten Son our Saviour. Which would you follow, the most holy Leo or Dioscorus?
The most reverend bishops cried out: We believe as Leo. Those who contradict are Eutychians. Leo hath rightly expounded the faith." -Session V, Volume 14, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, page 261. [Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 555]
My understanding of your reading of this just does not follow. I do not want to put words in your mouth, so please let me know if I have your position wrong. Are you suggesting that Rome was the center of the nestorian heresy? Were you suggesting that the papal vicars were being sent back to Rome as heretics?
K
kwortham
Guest
If so, then why did they cry out:
“We believe as Leo. Those who contradict are Eutychians. Leo hath rightly expounded the faith.” -Session V, Volume 14, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, page 261. [Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 555]
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That was in session V, after session IV, when the Tome of Leo had been determined by the council to be in accordance with the Orthodox faith. If you look session II in the acts, where the Tome of Leo was first read publicly, the Illyrian bishops were among the bishops who interrupted the reading of the Tome in order to make objections to its Nestorian sounding language.24. When there was being read the part of the aforesaid letter that contains the words, ‘For the payment of the debt owed by our nature divine nature was united to the passible nature, so that – this fitting our cure – one and the same, being the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, would be able to die in respect of the one and would not be able to expire in respect of the other’, and the most devout Illyrian and Palestinian bishops raised an objection, Aetius the most devout archdeacon of imperial Constantinople read out the chapter of Cyril of sacred memory, the late bishop of the city of Alexandria, containing the words, ‘Since again his own body by the grace of God tasted death on behalf of everyone, as the apostle says, he himself is said to have suffered death on our behalf, not as though he entered into the experience of death in regard to his own nature (for to say or think that would be lunacy) but because, as I have just said, his own flesh tasted death.’
- Likewise when there was being read the part that contains the words, ‘For each form performs what is proper to it in association with the other, the Word achieving what is the Word’s, while the body accomplishes what is the body’s; the one shines with miracles while the other has succumbed to outrages’, and the most devout Illyrian and Palestinian bishops raised an objection, Aetius archdeacon of the holy church of Constantinople read out the chapter of Cyril of sacred memory containing the words, ‘Some of the sayings are particularly fitting to God, some again are particularly fitting to man, while others occupy a middle position, revealing the Son of God as God and man simultaneously and at the same time.’
- Likewise when there was being read from the same letter the part that contains the words, ‘Although indeed in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one person of God and man, nevertheless that because of which the outrage is common in both is one thing and that because of which the glory is common is another, for he has from us the humanity that is less than the Father, and he has from the Father the Godhead that is equal with the Father’, and the most devout Illyrian and Palestinian bishops raised an objection, Theodoret the most devout bishop of Cyrrhus said, ‘There is a similar instance in the blessed Cyril which contains the words, “He became man without shedding what was his own, for he remained what he was; he is certainly conceived as one dwelling in another, that is, the divine nature in what is human.”’
V
Vico
Guest
Pope St. Leo’s best Christological work was his Letter to Emperor Leo I in August 453 A.D. But almost identical to letter CXXIV
CLIX To Leo Augustus.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.clix.html
CXXIV To the Monks of Palestine
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.cxviii.html
VI. There is no confusion of the two natures in Christ537. Although therefore from that beginning whereby in the Virgin’s womb “the Word became flesh,” no sort of division ever arose between the Divine and the human substance, and through all the growth and changes of His body, the actions were of one Person the whole time, yet we do not by any mixing of them up confound those very acts which were done inseparably: and from the character of the acts we perceive what belonged to either form. For neither do His Divine acts affect538 His human, nor His human acts His Divine, since both concur in this way and to this very end that in their operation His twofold qualities be not absorbed the one by the other, nor His individuality doubled.
VII. … For as the original chains of our captivity could not be loosed, unless a man of our race and of our nature appeared who was not under the prejudice of the old debt, and who with his untainted blood might blot out the bond of death548, as it had from the beginning been divinely fore-ordained, so it came to pass in the fulness of the appointed time that the promise which had been proclaimed in many ways might reach its long expected fulfilment, and that thus, what had been frequently announced by one testimony after another, might have all doubtfulness removed.
CLIX To Leo Augustus.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.clix.html
CXXIV To the Monks of Palestine
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.cxviii.html
VI. There is no confusion of the two natures in Christ537. Although therefore from that beginning whereby in the Virgin’s womb “the Word became flesh,” no sort of division ever arose between the Divine and the human substance, and through all the growth and changes of His body, the actions were of one Person the whole time, yet we do not by any mixing of them up confound those very acts which were done inseparably: and from the character of the acts we perceive what belonged to either form. For neither do His Divine acts affect538 His human, nor His human acts His Divine, since both concur in this way and to this very end that in their operation His twofold qualities be not absorbed the one by the other, nor His individuality doubled.
VII. … For as the original chains of our captivity could not be loosed, unless a man of our race and of our nature appeared who was not under the prejudice of the old debt, and who with his untainted blood might blot out the bond of death548, as it had from the beginning been divinely fore-ordained, so it came to pass in the fulness of the appointed time that the promise which had been proclaimed in many ways might reach its long expected fulfilment, and that thus, what had been frequently announced by one testimony after another, might have all doubtfulness removed.
- Status