Did the Acts of Chalcedon deny the authority of the Papacy?

The following is taken from a Russian Orthodox priest named Fr Ambrose M.: 

Chalcedon and the Rejection of Rome's Authority.

At the commencement of the Council the Roman legates conveyed to the Council Fathers the Pope of Rome's orders that Dioscorus must be expelled from the Council: 

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

So what did the Council Fathers do? 

They rejected the authority of the Pope. They most certainly did not accept him as their head or the head of "all the churches." 

How did they show this rejection of the Pope's claims? They ignored the Pope's instructions not to allow Discorus to have a seat at the Council. 

The Council Fathers gave Dioscorus a seat and allowed him to speak. They refused to follow the Pope's instructions that he should be cast out if he attempted to speak. Even the papal legates acted in a dishonest fashion. After threatening to leave if Dioscorus was allowed to be there and to speak, they did not leave. 

The whole incident is NOT proof of papal authority. It is just the opposite. It is proof that the Council Fathers did *not* see the Pope as having authority over them or over the activities of the Council. 

A resounding and very public defeat for any claims of the Pope, and at an Ecumenical Council.

Read it all here, at the beginning of the webpage http://www1000.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm 

First let's read the standard address as presented in the link Father provided (an older translation):  

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

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

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.  

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.  

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.  

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop ["Pope" for "bishop" in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.  

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

Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he who has come to be judged should sit down [as one to give judgment].  

The glorious judges and the whole senate said: If you hold the office of judge, you ought not to defend yourself as if you were to be judged.  

And when Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly (τῆς ἱερᾶς συγκλήτου ) had sat down in the midst, and the most reverend Roman bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence, Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of the city of Dorylæum, stepping into the midst, said...--Extracts of the Acts of Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451): Session I

Without understanding the context, on its face it appears like the senate is ignoring the Papal legates and letting Dioscorus sit down "in the midst." However, they are not ignoring the legates. The "midst" or "center" is where the trial happens.

Richard Price's comments about the positioning of the council as follows:

The council convened in the martyrium of St Euphemia in Chalcedon. The imperial commissioners sat in the middle, in front of the rails of the sanctuary. To their left sat the pope’s envoys, the archbishops Anatolius and Maximus, Thalassius of Caesarea, and the bishops of Syria and Asia Minor. To their right were seated the supporters of Dioscorus, initially including Juvenal and the bishops of Palestine and Illyricum as well as those of Egypt. As was customary at such gatherings, a copy of the Gospels was displayed in the centre, to signify the true presidency over the council held by Christ. The centre space was also reserved for those speaking, for those presenting accusations or those present as defendants.--The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, translated by Richard Price, Introduction, p.42-43

The center was where the action happened, where debate happened, accusations made, and where defendants sat.

Concerning the specific incident of Dioscorus' seat, Price comments:

This remark has generally been taken as a rebuke to Lucentius for acting as prosecutor when seated as a judge. But surely it is addressed to Dioscorus, and expresses agreement with the view Lucentius has just expressed, that Dioscorus as defendant cannot sit among the judges. Accordingly he now takes a place in the centre of the church.--The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, translated by Richard Price, The First Session. Page 130, note 55.

As you see, he said the instructions were given to Dioscorus, the Papal Legates were not being rebuked.

Evagrius' Church History gives a more complete account of what happened:

This was, then, the place of meeting of the beforementioned synod; at which the bishops Paschasinus  and Lucentius, and the presbyter Boniface, were the representatives of Leo, archpriest of the elder Rome;  there being present Anatolius president of Constantinople, Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, Maximus of  Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jerusalem: on whom attended  both their associate priests, and those who held the places  of highest rank in the most excellent senate. To the latter the representatives of Leo alleged, that Dioscorus  ought not to be seated with themselves; for such, they said, were their instructions from their bishop: as also that they would withdraw from the church, if they should be unable to maintain this point. In reply to the question of the senators, what were the charges against Dioscorus, they stated, that he ought himself to render an account of his own decision, since he had unduly assumed the character of a judge. After this statement had been made, and Dioscorus, according to a resolution of the senate, had taken his seat in the centre, Eusebius demanded, in the following words, that the petition should be read which he had presented to the sovereign power: “ I have been wronged by Dioscorus; the faith has been wronged: the bishop Flavian was murdered, and, together with myself, unjustly deposed by him. Give directions that my petition be read.” When the matter had been discussed, the petition was allowed to be read: it was couched in the following terms. Eusebius, the very humble bishop of Doryleum, who now pleads on behalf of himself and the orthodox faith,  and the sainted Flavian, formerly bishop of Constantinople. It is the aim of your majesty to exercise a providential care of all your subjects, and stretch forth a protecting hand to all who are suffering wrong, and to those especially who are invested with the priesthood...--Evagrius, Ecclesiatical History: Book II: Chapter IV: Council of Chalcedon, page 51-53

The description of the account describes Dioscorus taking a seat in the center, and immediately accusations are made against him.  Then eventually Dioscorus asks for Ephesus II (his attempt at an ecumenical council) to be read. He is accused of suppressing the letter of Pope Leo. Eventually he is condemned and ordered to be exiled (though he left before the final verdict).

Price translates the following, after the council's turmoil of yelling bishops:

The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Bishop Theodoret has been admitted as an accuser, as you have heard from his own mouth.’ 

195. Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Why is he seated among the bishops?’ 

196. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Bishop Eusebius and Bishop Theodoret are seated as accusers, just as you are seated among the accused. Let the rest be read.’--The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, translated by Richard Price, The First Session. Page 165.

 The officials outright say that Dioscorus sat in the chair of the accused. 

Going back to Father's claim:

The whole incident is NOT proof of papal authority.

No one said it should be. 

It is just the opposite.

 As demonstrated above, it's not proof of the opposite. Fr Ambrose got the whole incident wrong. 

It is proof that the Council Fathers did *not* see the Pope as having authority over them or over the activities of the Council. 

The council proceeded with the Papal Legate's directions. The Legates were the Presidents of the council formally, they were only ignored over canon 28, though in function the steps were done by laymen, not even clergy:

Since the peace of the church was clearly too important to be trusted to the bishops, effective presidency of the council was given to a committee of prestigious laymen who held either high-ranking posts in the imperial government or membership in the Constantinopolitan senate... 

Pope Leo...was represented by bishops Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, Lucentius of Asculanum, and Julian of Cos, and the presbyter Boniface. They were recognized as holding formal presidency over the council, although the imperial commissioners more typically directed the agenda in practice. The papal legates pronounced sentence on Dioscorus during the third session, and were able to dictate the terms of the Definition of Faith. But at the council’s final session, the twenty-eighth canon ratifying Constantinople’s ecclesiastical primacy in the east was adopted over their strenuous objections.--The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, translated by Richard Price, Introduction, p 41-42

Canon 28 is another issue, but Patriarch Anatolius later told the Pope that the ignored the legates on this matter since they were sure the Pope would agree with them over his own legates (which he soon found out that the Pope would not). 

But going back to the issue of Papal authority that the Council recognized. The Council involved several letters, including Conciliar letters to the Pope which includes the following:

and besides all this he stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour, we mean of course your holiness, and purposed excommunication against one who had at heart the unifying of the Church. And instead of showing penitence for this, instead of begging mercy with tears, he exulted as if over virtuous actions, rejecting your holiness' letter and resisting all the dogmas of the Truth. --Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo the Great

Lateran Council AD 649 Eastern delegates on the Papacy

The following are excerpts taken from Fr Richard Price's translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 that reflect a high view of the papacy:

The Council quotes a letter to the former Pope by the Archbishop of Cyprus

Christ our God founded your apostolic see, O sacred head, as a divinely fixed and immovable support and conspicuous inscription of the faith. For you, as the divine Word truly declared without deceit, are Peter, and on your foundation the pillars of the church are fixed; to you he committed the keys of the heavens and decreed that you are to bind and loose with authority on earth and in heaven. You have been made the destroyer of profane heresies, as the leader and teacher of the orthodox and unimpeachable faith.--Archbishop Sergius of Cyprus, AD 643, Letter to Pope Theodore, as read at Lateran AD 649.

Archbishop Sergius eventually would compromise with the heretical Emperor rather than keep strict orthodoxy of duothelitism. Yet, this doesn't change the fact he said this words.

Now we have monks from the East at the council:

we who are now present beg, entreat and beseech all you  most holy fathers and the apostolic and sovereign see not to overlook the petitions of Christians over so many years and from all quarters addressed  equally to God and to your most holy selves, nor the pleas presented with  tears on this matter by our humble selves, whether present or absent,  but canonically and in council to vindicate the most holy faith that is  under attack from the aforesaid men, and (after God) to keep it safe for  all, uncontaminated by innovation and resplendent as before with pious teaching for the benefit of orthodox priests, laymen and monks throughout the world, since the hearts of all rely on you (after God), knowing that under Christ you are the supreme head of the churches.--Greek Hegumens and Monks to the Lateran Council AD 649 and the Pope

Patriarch Paul of Constantinople, though not touching directly on the issue of the papacy, does state Peter is the pre-eminent, head apostle:

We, therefore, accepted the  conscientious proposal of the said God-beloved men: knowing what the  pre-eminent head of the apostles teaches, that we should be ‘ready to give  an answer to everyone who requests a word from us concerning the hope  that is in us’, and combining in ‘good conscience’ courtesy and the fear of  God, we shall set out our view of this single question in this letter, shunning  and eschewing verbosity and repetition as tedious and inappropriate for the present time.  

Bishop Stephen of Dora:

this authoritatively from the first and from of old, on the basis of its  apostolic and canonical authority, for the reason, evidently, that the truly  great Peter, the head of the apostles, was deemed worthy not only to be entrusted, alone out of all, with ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ for both opening them deservedly to those who believe and shutting them  justly to those who do not believe in the gospel of grace, but also because  he was the first to be entrusted with shepherding the sheep of the whole  catholic church. As the text runs, ‘Peter, do you love me? Shepherd my sheep.’ And again, because he possessed more than all others, in an exceptional and unique way, firm and unshakeable faith in our Lord, [he was deemed worthy] to turn and strengthen his comrades and spiritual brethren when they were wavering, since providentially he had been adorned by the God who became incarnate for our sake with power and priestly authority over them all.

Christ Our Savior Cathedral, Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow

Some Orthodox traditionalists mock western iconography as simply "art" or "secular art" and deny they are icons. Some mock Eastern Rite Catholic churches for including Western icons and decry it as Latinization! This article points out an example of Latinization in an Orthodox Cathedral despite no compulsion from Rome!

Years ago, before Russia's formal entry into Ukraine's then civil war, I visited Moscow and her famous Orthodox churches. Among them was the Cathedral of Christ Our Savior. It was built in pre-Soviet times, the Communists demolished the church and built a huge swimming pool, Moscow Pool, in its place.  After the collapse of the USSR, the city raised funds, and it was rebuilt (supposedly) to the exact specifications of the former Cathedral.

I was not able to take photos of the interior despite the church being a recent rebuild and the icons being recent (perhaps to retain a sense of the sacred).

There are a number of oddities to the Cathedral, a lot of Latinizations, despite its holding in prominence in the Russian Patriarchate.

The iconostasis has the first two bottom rows with western icons:

The icon behind the altar is in the tradition of Da Vinci's Last Supper:

If Latin iconography were so reprehensible as some ultra traditionalist Orthodox claim, why has not this prominent cathedral been corrected?

In addition, the Dome's iconography is particularly "non-canonical" with a unique depiction of the Trinity that differs from the famous depiction by Rublev.

Contrary to Orthodox canon, the Father is depicted, not just that, as an old man, rather than appearing the same as Christ! Christ is depicted as a Child! The Spirit as a dove.

Also, an aside, the Dome has a funny mistaken in the picture above with 3 angels above the Father:

The three words on top are Old Church Slavonic of свѧтъ svyat (holy) abbreviated. There is a tilda, or titlo above the T, just as in Greek for commonly used words showing the word is abbreviated. Though you would think they could simply make space and spell it out, this is common even in icons with plenty of space. This is not the interesting part though, this is an abbreviated trisagion (thrice holy), "Holy, Holy, Holy God...". 

Beneath it are Hebrew letters, or at least they should be. Presumably, and what appears to be attempted is the Hebrew spelling for God--אלֹהִים Elohim. The most embarrassing is the second letter (from the right) is nonsense. The top starts off as the correct letter--a lammed "L" but finishes at the bottom like the letter veit/beit. Correction the lammed looks likes somewhat similar to the number 7-- לֹ. The second most embarassing mistake is the next letters, presumably a heh--הִ. It is drawn instead as a ר -- resh with a dot or comma under the left end, rather than a line that extends to the bottom, or perhaps the dot is the 'i' diacritical. The diacritics are inconsistently used with nothing below the aleph, the failed lammed has the mark for the o sound, if the dot below the failed heh is a diacritical, its misplaced and should be under the yod. An attempt was made. I say this not to mock necessarily, I have seen a Church in France with questionable Hebrew!

Perhaps the poor Hebrew reflect the painstaking eye for detail to make an exact replica of the former Cathedral?

In addition, to western icon used for the iconostasis, there are scattered examples of western art:

The left of the altar is a very western nativity scene:

Going back to the art used, the exterior of the church also has reliefs, if not statues, which generally are not that common in Byzantine Christian churches.

to be continued

Tikkun Olam--Sikhun Olam? Funny dialectical result

Years ago I was given an example of the difference of Hebrew "dialects" ie Sefardic and Ashkenazi Hebrew. In many languages "th" sounds as in theta devolves into an s sound as in "saith" (said like faith) in middle English became "says" (after another shift where s becomes z). This happened in Ashkenazi Hebrew too with the phrase תִּקּוּן עוֹלָם --tikkun olam in modern Hebrew. The Hebrew alphabet has two t sounds: tet and tav. The tav in old Hebrew is generally believed to be a "th" sound as in sabbath or savvat, Ashkenazi pronunciation is shabbos, where the last "s" is a raphated tav. Another example of letters that sound alike in Hebrew are the k/q sounds: כ and ק, which are said mostly interchangeably.

The consequence of this is the Hebrew conception of repairing the world 'תִּקּוּן עוֹלָם' tikkun olam in modern Hebrew is changed to סִכּוּן עוֹלָם sikun olam which can be interpreted as "endangering the world," the opposite of the intention!