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
No comments:
Post a Comment