What was the point?

[Montalban]

What was the point of the first seven ecumenical councils if the Pope had already made a ruling?

Why did they even bother to debate, and then vote on something if the Pope was the head of the church and had already decided/declared what was doctrine?

 

[JaneFrances]

What was the point of the first seven ecumenical councils if the Pope had already made a ruling?

Why did they even bother to debate, and then vote on something if the Pope was the head of the church and had already decided/declared what was doctrine?

Every council and synod meets for a variety of reasons–practical and theological. A particular purpose of any given council (ecumenical or national) is to debate, discuss, and recommend. Basically, councils counsel. Even if a Pope has made a specific declaration or decision on a topic, a council may subsequently meet to discuss said topic–such as logistics, etc. Ordinarily, obedience would preclude them from attempting to oppose such a papal decision, however as the pope is a fellow among a council of bishops, any concicular pronouncement or recommendation is considered as counsel.

Supplying a specific example would help in your exploration of this topic!

 

[Ghosty]

Who says that the Pope had necessarily made a decision prior to the Councils? The Pope’s job, both ex cathedra and as head of the Ecumenical Councils, is as the confirmer of the his brethren, not as a dictator to the brethren. This is why the two recent examples of “Papal Infallibility”, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, were based on people sending letters to the POPE asking for confirmation on these matters, then the Pope doing some consultations, and issuing a dogmatic response on behalf of the Church. They were not Papal decrees handed down out of the blue.

This is made especially explicit in the encyclical on the Immaculate Conception, where the Pope explains why he decided to make this proclaimation after strong rallying on the part of bishops and laity.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I also recommend you read my response on your other thread, in which I go into some explicit examples from history, long before the Schism, of precisely the power I’m describing here.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Montalban]

Every council and synod meets for a variety of reasons–practical and theological. A particular purpose of any given council (ecumenical or national) is to debate, discuss, and recommend. Basically, councils counsel. Even if a Pope has made a specific declaration or decision on a topic, a council may subsequently meet to discuss said topic–such as logistics, etc. Ordinarily, obedience would preclude them from attempting to oppose such a papal decision, however as the pope is a fellow among a council of bishops, any concicular pronouncement or recommendation is considered as counsel.

This still doesn’t explain ‘what the point is’. What’s the point when the Pope’s made his decision?

Supplying a specific example would help in your exploration of this topic!

The Council of Chalcedon (451) was called against the express wishes of Pope Leo (take a look at Canon 28 if you want me to be even more specific)

 

[Montalban]

Who says that the Pope had necessarily made a decision prior to the Councils?

I do. There have been a few times that the Pope condemned a person and then the Council met to decide for themselves. The Council of Chalcedon (451) had seen the Pope already condemn Nestorius. The council met and weighed up the evidence and agreed with the Pope. They didn’t meekly accept the Pope’s ruling, or they’d have been no need for a council.

The Pope’s job, both ex cathedra and as head of the Ecumenical Councils, is as the confirmer of the his brethren, not as a dictator to the brethren.

No, the Pope is a dictator insofar as the Church can not do anything against his wishes. It is a special place within Catholicism that the Pope has.

I dispute that he was ‘head of the Ecumenical Councils’ because some were called without his knowledge or against his wishes, and no popes were in attendance, and the emperor called them, not the Pope.

This is why the two recent examples of “Papal Infallibility”, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, were based on people sending letters to the POPE asking for confirmation on these matters, then the Pope doing some consultations, and issuing a dogmatic response on behalf of the Church. They were not Papal decrees handed down out of the blue.

Yes, I can accept that the Pope seeks guidence etc. BUT when he’s made a decision, why then call a council to debate it?

The Council of Constantinople was presided over by St. Meletius who was not in communion with Rome.

 

[Montalban]

The Catechism:

881: The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/881.htm

He holds this spot alone. I can understand that a Pope might call a synod to advise him, or that a synod might meet and then petition the Pope. But when the Pope makes a decision, why then were there Ecumenical Councils which met (at the behest of the Emperor) which debated at some length the issue and then made up its own mind (if you believe that the Pope’s word is final). Remember in those days people journeyed for months over dangerous seas/roads to get to these councils. It seems rather bizarre that they would do so if the Pope’s already given a decision.

In fact Pope St. Victor, in the “Easter Controversy” condemned a practice by some eastern churches and was himself rebuked by a Council that met after Victor’s decision, to decide things for themselves. They then concluded that Victor had over-stepped his mark.

Victor was Pope (189-199) when controversy arose amongst some churches regarding when Easter should be celebrated. The Church in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a different day from the rest of the Christian churches, and although he initiated a synod to investigate, this was done by request, not command. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus wrote to St. Victor “Victor and the Roman Church”.[1] Not “Victor head of the church” (in other words he’s acknowledging Victor as head of his own diocese.

Eusebius: “There is extant to this day a letter from those who attended a conference in Palestine presided over by Bishop Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem; and from those at Rome a similar one, arising out of the same controversy, which names Victor as bishop. There are others from the Pontic bishops, presided over by Palmas as the senior; from the Gallic province, over which Irenaeus was archbishop, and from the bishops in Osrhoene and the cities of that region. There are personal letters from Bishop Bacchyllus of Corinth and very many more, who voiced the same opinion and judgment and gave the same vote. All these laid down one single rule the rule already stated.” [2]
Thus the decree came from the conference, not from the Pope. However, Polycrates disputed the council findings.
“Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman Church attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian diocese, together with the neighboring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy.” [3]

Note here it states that Victor attempted. He failed because “…this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whom he was
responsible for in Gaul.”[4] This hardly suggest universal over-lordship as understood by the early church. In fact it argues very much against this; one bishop sought to exert his authority outside of his See and was either ignored or sternly rebuked.
Even when the churches were reconciled it was done in a manner that does not suggest Papal overlordship…

16 And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.[5]

That is, two bishops met and came to a mutual agreement. It was in no way where the Pope ordered and Polycarp obeyed.

Now some might put a spin on this to say that the Pope’s ‘decision’ was a defence of the ‘orthodox’, and that the eastern churches changed their date for calculating Easter. But they didn’t do this right away (as if obeying a Papal directive) and despite this they were not further condemned. They did, in their own time come to join ALL the other churches in calculating Easter the same way.

Endnotes​

[1] Eusebius – v. 24, quoted in Michael Whelton “Two Paths”, p45.
[2] Ibid, p45.
[3] Ibid, pp46-47.
[4] Whelton, Ibid.
[5] Eusubius, Book V Chapter XXIV quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2729_1313445

 

[Black_Knight_MI]

Yes, I can accept that the Pope seeks guidence etc. BUT when he’s made a decision, why then call a council to debate it?

Did it occur to you that it may well be to insure that all his bishops are on the same page?
Blackie

 

[Ghosty]

This still doesn’t explain ‘what the point is’. What’s the point when the Pope’s made his decision?

It’s never happened, so what exactly are you asking?

The Council of Chalcedon (451) was called against the express wishes of Pope Leo (take a look at Canon 28 if you want me to be even more specific)

Ummm, the Council of Chalcedon was called BY Pope Leo to overturn the “Robber Synod”. Canon 28 was tacked on by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and it was vetoed and did not become effective with Chalcedon. It wasn’t even to be found in the final original copies of the Council for just this reason. The Pope doesn’t have to approve every Canon, and those he vetoes stay vetoed.

do. There have been a few times that the Pope condemned a person and then the Council met to decide for themselves. The Council of Chalcedon (451) had seen the Pope already condemn Nestorius. The council met and weighed up the evidence and agreed with the Pope. They didn’t meekly accept the Pope’s ruling, or they’d have been no need for a council.

You have a lot of facts wrong here. Nestorius was condemned at the Council of Ephesus 20 years before Chalcedon. You’re thinking of Eutyches, the Monophysite. The Pope hadn’t condemned him, he had written a treatise called the “Tome of Leo” against Eutyches’ theology. The Council of Chalcedon ratified that Tome as the official teaching of the Catholic Church, and in line with the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria which had been promulgated at Ephesus. It’s simply an example of a Pope’s theological treatise being enacted as dogmatic by a Council.

No, the Pope is a dictator insofar as the Church can not do anything against his wishes. It is a special place within Catholicism that the Pope has.

You obviously don’t know much about the Catholic Church and it’s difficulties with the Liturgy in the U.S. if you think this statement is true.

Yes, I can accept that the Pope seeks guidence etc. BUT when he’s made a decision, why then call a council to debate it?

This has never happened on the heels of an ex cathedra statement, so the question is moot.

I dispute that he was ‘head of the Ecumenical Councils’ because some were called without his knowledge or against his wishes, and no popes were in attendance, and the emperor called them, not the Pope.

Head doesn’t mean he has to sit at them, it means he’s the one who gives consent. Contrary to your assertion, there have been no Ecumenical Councils without the consent of the Pope. I challenge you to find a single example.

The Council of Constantinople was presided over by St. Meletius who was not in communion with Rome.

He most certainly was at the time of the Council of Constantinople. He was officially reunited in 379, the Council was held in 381.

Peace and God bless!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

What was the point of the first seven ecumenical councils if the Pope had already made a ruling?

I suggest you haven’t sufficiently studied ecclesial history. Councils gathered to discuss doctrinal or disciplinary matters. After the council, the decisions and canons are either ratified or rejected by the Bishop of Rome. This does not mean that the pope “already made a ruling.” How could he ratify or veto canons and ecclesial documents that have yet to be formulated and decided upon by council?

On the contrary, the ecumenical councils only become “ecumenical” by ratification of the pope. Thus, the council precedes the ratification. Furthermore, only those councilar decisions and canons that are ratified by the pope have binding force.

The Council of Chalcedon, for example, was attended by prelates of the Bishop of Rome. They were sent by the Bishop of Rome to Chalcedon to represent him. At the council, the prelates of Rome objected to canon 28, but the canon was voted upon and the prelates of Rome were out-voted by the other bishops. Nonetheless, after the council, the bishops of Chalcedon sent a letter to Pope Leo asking the pope to ratifiy the canons of Chalcedon.

From the letter to Pope Leo from the Bishops of Chalcedon:"You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. … (Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98)Besides all this, he (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. … (ibid)Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. (ibid) Thus, the bishops of Chalcedon understood the pope to be the “head” of the college of bishops, with authority to either ratify or veto the decisions voted upon in Council.

Notice that the Eastern and Western Bishops of Chalcedon are asking for Pope Leo’s ratification of their councilar decisions, yielding their agreement to the “HEAD” of the Church. Note that they consider themselves “CHILDREN” to Pope Leo. Also note that they assert that Pope Leo had been charged with “CUSTODY OF THE VINE BY THE SAVIOR” and not by political gain or the mere consent of the other bishops.

These claims agree with Catholicism. Pope Leo undoubtedly had singular juridic authority to either ratify or to reject the councilar decisions. No other bishop was asked to ratify the councilar decision, because no other bishop had been charged with “custody of the vine by the Savior.”

So, what did Pope Leo do? There were 28 canons decided upon at Chalcedon. Pope Leo ratified all of them except canon 28, which attempted to elevate Constantinople with wording that was contrary to Catholic teaching. Pope Leo exercised his VERY REAL juridic authority and rejected canon 28. Subsequently, Anatolius, the Bishop of Constantinople, wrote to Pope Leo, and apologetically stated,"As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople [ie. canon 28], let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.(Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132, on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon)The evidence of history is clear. Pope Leo had juridic authority to veto that which an Ecumenical Council of Bishops agreed to. Only the Bishop of Rome has ever exercised this clear jurisdictional authority in the history of Christianity. Did Pope Leo “preside” only in honor or did he have real authority to either ratify or reject councilar decisions? It seems clear the latter is true, contrary to the opinion of later revisionists. Why did Pope Leo have this authority? The bishops of both East and West at Chalcedon in the fifth century asserted as the Catholic Church asserts today: the pope has been charged with the custody of the Vine by the Savior.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Hey Dave! Good to see you back!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hey Dave! Good to see you back!

Thanks…good to be back.

For a detailed description of the Council of Chalcedon, I recommend the The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325 - 1870 by Mgr. Philip Hughes. You can read it online here.

 

[JaneFrances]

WOW. . .I was just logging in to respond here and 'lo and behold ya’ll beat me to the punch! I’m thrilled!

 

[Montalban]

Did it occur to you that it may well be to insure that all his bishops are on the same page?
Blackie

Why not just issue an encylical to all the churches rather than have them travel hundred of kms over dangerous roads.

And besides, they didn’t just gather to hear the Pope’s instructions, but to debate and then come to a finding.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

This still doesn’t explain ‘what the point is’. What’s the point when the Pope’s made his decision?

Ghosty:

It’s never happened, so what exactly are you asking?

What is the point of having a council after the Pope’s decision.

Montalban:

The Council of Chalcedon (451) was called against the express wishes of Pope Leo (take a look at Canon 28 if you want me to be even more specific)

Ghosty:

Ummm, the Council of Chalcedon was called BY Pope Leo to overturn the “Robber Synod”.

So you’re arguing that after the Pope made a decision he’s called together a council to debate his decision?
“It was the emperor Marcian who, after the “robber” council of Ephesus (449), commanded this council to meet. Pope Leo I was opposed to it. His view was that all the bishops should repent of their ways and individually sign his earlier dogmatic letter to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, and so avoid a new round of argument and debate.”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CHALCEDO.HTM

Ghosty:

Canon 28 was tacked on by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and it was vetoed and did not become effective with Chalcedon. It wasn’t even to be found in the final original copies of the Council for just this reason. The Pope doesn’t have to approve every Canon, and those he vetoes stay vetoed.

This was not just ‘tacked on’ at all. And as I noted in another thread, the Catholic Church approved of it in the 1200s.

Montalban:

There have been a few times that the Pope condemned a person and then the Council met to decide for themselves. The Council of Chalcedon (451) had seen the Pope already condemn Nestorius. The council met and weighed up the evidence and agreed with the Pope. They didn’t meekly accept the Pope’s ruling, or they’d have been no need for a council.

Ghosty:

You have a lot of facts wrong here. Nestorius was condemned at the Council of Ephesus 20 years before Chalcedon.

Yes, you are correct. The Council at Ephesus itself met after the Pope condemned Nestorius. It still doesn’t help your case

Ghosty:

The Council of Chalcedon ratified that Tome as the official teaching of the Catholic Church, and in line with the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria which had been promulgated at Ephesus. It’s simply an example of a Pope’s theological treatise being enacted as dogmatic by a Council.

No, it’s a case of the Tome being sent to a Council and then the Council debating it and saying that it and the teachings of St. Cyril were ‘Orthodox’. Again, if the Pope was the supreme head of all the church, there’d have been no need for debate, further they’d not be comparing his words on par with St. Cyril

Montalban:

No, the Pope is a dictator insofar as the Church can not do anything against his wishes. It is a special place within Catholicism that the Pope has.

Ghosty:

You obviously don’t know much about the Catholic Church and it’s difficulties with the Liturgy in the U.S. if you think this statement is true.

That there are rebels doesn’t make your ‘just-so’ true. Just as because there are heretics doesn’t mean there’s not ‘orthodoxy’.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Yes, I can accept that the Pope seeks guidence etc. BUT when he’s made a decision, why then call a council to debate it?

Ghosty:

This has never happened on the heels of an ex cathedra statement, so the question is moot.

Actually many Popes have made expressions on dogma that were then debated. Your ‘Tome’ being one… it is considered an authoritative statement on Christological and Trinitarian doctrine. The moment it was issued/read it should have ended debate. It did not.

Montalban:

I dispute that he was ‘head of the Ecumenical Councils’ because some were called without his knowledge or against his wishes, and no popes were in attendance, and the emperor called them, not the Pope.

Ghosty:

Head doesn’t mean he has to sit at them, it means he’s the one who gives consent. Contrary to your assertion, there have been no Ecumenical Councils without the consent of the Pope. I challenge you to find a single example.

Actually I’ve already mentioned that one met without his consent. Later it was given. And there have been no Ecumenical Councils without the consent of the whole church hence the word ‘ecumenical’.
The Council of Constantinople I (553) also met despite the wishes of the Pope (Vigilius)

Montalban:

The Council of Constantinople was presided over by St. Meletius who was not in communion with Rome.

Ghosty:

He most certainly was at the time of the Council of Constantinople. He was officially reunited in 379, the Council was held in 381.

“It was presided over at first by St. Meletius, the bishop of Antioch who was bishop not in communion with Rome”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.ii.html?bcb=0

Further…
It was not summoned by the Pope, nor was he invited to it.
No diocese of the West was present either by representation or in the person of its bishop; neither the see of Rome, nor any other see.
(Ibid.)

 

[Montalban]

I suggest you haven’t sufficiently studied ecclesial history.

Right back at ya

Councils gathered to discuss doctrinal or disciplinary matters. After the council, the decisions and canons are either ratified or rejected by the Bishop of Rome. This does not mean that the pope “already made a ruling.” How could he ratify or veto canons and ecclesial documents that have yet to be formulated and decided upon by council?

Given that the Pope had in some cases already made a ruling then your simply needing to ignore that small point.

On the contrary, the ecumenical councils only become “ecumenical” by ratification of the pope. Thus, the council precedes the ratification. Furthermore, only those councilar decisions and canons that are ratified by the pope have binding force.

No, Councils were ratified by all the church to become ecumenical.

The Council of Chalcedon, for example, was attended by prelates of the Bishop of Rome. They were sent by the Bishop of Rome to Chalcedon to represent him. At the council, the prelates of Rome objected to canon 28, but the canon was voted upon and the prelates of Rome were out-voted by the other bishops. Nonetheless, after the council, the bishops of Chalcedon sent a letter to Pope Leo asking the pope to ratifiy the canons of Chalcedon.

Indeed, they would want all the church to agree with the findings.

From the letter to Pope Leo from the Bishops of Chalcedon:"You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. … (Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98)Besides all this, he (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. … (ibid)Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. (ibid) Thus, the bishops of Chalcedon understood the pope to be the “head” of the college of bishops, with authority to either ratify or veto the decisions voted upon in Council.

If they understood this, then they’d have not debated whether to accept Leo’s Tome.
Cyril wrote to John of Antioch calling him “my lord”. The flowery language of the time - of great politeness was not unique to that accorded any one bishop. If you have a web-link so I can read your text in context, that would be much appreciated, because I know from past experience people give me selective quoting.

And Leo too saught that they should be in agreement. It is the way of the Church. But that’s the Catholic spin. When a bishop of Rome addresses someone politely, there’s nothing to it, but when it’s reverese IT MUST BE PROOF of Papal Supremacy!

 

[Montalban]

Let’s look to how they dealt with the ‘tome’
Another claim concerns a vastly selective editing of an event….

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’”

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

Firstly, this is the same Leo it must be remembered, begged the Emperor to have the council meet in Italy, but the Emperor ignored him…

“And because this mystery is now being impiously opposed by a few ignorant persons, all the churches of our parts, and all the priests entreat your clemency, with groans and tears seeing that our delegates faithfully protested, and bishop Flavian gave them an appeal in writing, to order a general synod to be held in Italy, which shall either dismiss or appease all disputes in such a way that there be nothing any longer either doubtful in the Faith or divided in love, and to it, of course, the bishops of the Eastern provinces must come, and if any of them were overcome by threats and injury, and deviated from the path of truth, they may be fully restored by health-giving measures, and they themselves, whose case is harder, if they acquiesce in wiser counsels, may not fall from the unity of the Church.

Letter XLIV. To Theodosius Augustus. ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-49.htm#P1334_326773

But what about the actual text as put forward by the Catholics? Well let’s look at the text and how it reads in context “After reading of the forgoing epistle (Pope Leo’s), the most reverend bishops cried out: “This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.”

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-95.htm#P4844_991182

That is, they welcome the teachings of Leo, because they are the truth, as are the teachings of Cyril. They are not saying ‘these are the teachings of our leader’, otherwise they wouldn’t have put Cyril on the same footing as Leo.

 

[Montalban]

Thanks…good to be back.

For a detailed description of the Council of Chalcedon, I recommend the The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325 - 1870 by Mgr. Philip Hughes. You can read it online here.

What you miss from the same letter
“FROM THE SYNOD OF CHALCEDON TO LEO. The great and holy and universal Synod, which by the grace of God and the sanction of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors has been gathered together in the metropolis of Chalcedon in the province of Bithynia, to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo. I.”
newadvent.org/fathers/3604098.htm
The council was called by the Emperor

“We have deposed Eutyches, treating him as mercifully as we could.”
(Ibid.) The council deposed Eutyches, not Leo.

" And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told. "
(Ibid.)
They are making decisions on church matters and are going to inform Leo what their decisions are. True they seek his assent, but they seek the assent of all the churches. That is the Christian way.
And that the Pope’s representatives were out-voted
“For your holiness’ delegates, the most pious bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and with them the right Godly presbyter Boniface, attempted vehemently to resist these decisions, from a strong desire that this good work also should start from your foresight, in order that the establishment of good order as well as of the Faith should be put to your account”
(Ibid.)

What you see here is a Council coming to a decision. They then wish to inform the Pope of that decision and hope, for the sake of Church unity he agrees. But they are the one’s who made the decision.

 

[Ghosty]

Actually many Popes have made expressions on dogma that were then debated. Your ‘Tome’ being one… it is considered an authoritative statement on Christological and Trinitarian doctrine. The moment it was issued/read it should have ended debate. It did not.

You’re confusing a theological teaching by a Pope with an infallible statement. There is nothing in the Tome of Leo that indicates an ex cathedra statement of any kind. You’re expanding the definition of Papal infallibility beyond the bounds recognized by the Catholic Church, so you’re merely erecting a strawman.

So you’re arguing that after the Pope made a decision he’s called together a council to debate his decision?
“It was the emperor Marcian who, after the “robber” council of Ephesus (449), commanded this council to meet. Pope Leo I was opposed to it. His view was that all the bishops should repent of their ways and individually sign his earlier dogmatic letter to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, and so avoid a new round of argument and debate.”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CHALCEDO.HTM

My mistake. He still approved it and sent legates. Again, he doesn’t have to convoke a Council for it to be Ecumenical, he merely must approve it.

This was not just ‘tacked on’ at all. And as I noted in another thread, the Catholic Church approved of it in the 1200s.

You must read the actual letters from the time. I recommend you go back and do so if you haven’t (it seems you may not have). I posted them on your other thread. They were most certainly not accepted at the time. Whether or not the change in status between Alexandria and Constantinople was ratified in the 1200s is immaterial. The fact remains that the change was vetoed at the time of Chalcedon.

Yes, you are correct. The Council at Ephesus itself met after the Pope condemned Nestorius. It still doesn’t help your case

Again you’re confusing the meaning of ex cathedra statements and Papal Infallibility. If you’re going to argue against Papal Infallibility, it behooves you to argue against the real thing, and not your own creation. I repeat: theological dissertations by the Pope are not automatically infallible, and personal condemnations are NEVER infallible, not even by an Ecumenical Council, they are merely disciplinary. Only the condemnations of the heresy itself can be infallible.

No, it’s a case of the Tome being sent to a Council and then the Council debating it and saying that it and the teachings of St. Cyril were ‘Orthodox’. Again, if the Pope was the supreme head of all the church, there’d have been no need for debate, further they’d not be comparing his words on par with St. Cyril

The Tome was a theological treatise sent to Patriarch Flavian in 449 to address the ideas of Eutyches. It was not an ex cathedra statement, nor did it give any authoritative directions. It was simply Leo’s understanding of the issue, and his argument against Eutyches, and his support of Flavian’s position. It was a personal letter. You can read it yourself here. It doesn’t meet a single criterion for Papal Infallibility. In fact, the recent Papal Encyclical (also not Infallible) fits more criteria for an ex cathedra statement than the Tome of Leo

That there are rebels doesn’t make your ‘just-so’ true. Just as because there are heretics doesn’t mean there’s not ‘orthodoxy’.

No, but the Pope doesn’t have the real power to act as a dictator in such matters. He has extraordinary power in extreme circumstances, but in day to day affairs it is impossible to exercise despotically. The Papal prerogatives of supreme jurisdiction are protected, but that hardly means they’re constantly enforced in any kind of overt manner. Just like the U.S. having the legal capability of engaging in military law doesn’t make it a police state and the President a dictator.

continued…