In light of the discussion that Dr. White and I had on the Dividing Line yesterday, I am doing some preliminary internet research on the Council of Chalcedon canon 28. I have several books in my library that I have yet to consult on the subject, but I wanted to post up some material from the internet just to show how differently people interpret historical events. Everyone has their own biased interpretation of the event. Yet who gives the best and most detailed examination of this subject? One or two of these are very shallow in their presentations, the others are written on a more scholarly level. The sources are linked below each entry so you can check them out and give your opinions on the matter. I am sure there are more sites out there that have info on the subject, these are just some of the ones I found. For those of you who are interested in the subject, I hope this gets you more familiar with the debate over Canon 28. I hope to have a podcast prepared on this subject as soon as I compile enough credible information on the subject. Fell free to comment on this. The more insightful comments we have on this subject, the better for all of us. Enjoy.
Article I
Does Constantinople’s interpretation of canon 28 accurately reflect its original intention or at least represent a legitimate extension of its meaning? Or does it serve simply as a pretext for unwarranted “neo-papalism,” as the Russian Church has charged? A purely historical exploration of what this canon meant in its original context will not answer such questions any more than it will resolve modern differences between Catholic and Orthodox understandings of primacy, products as they are of very different historical circumstances. But such an exploration may be instructive nonetheless. A full study of this subject cannot be undertaken here, but it may be possible to identify some points of agreement and not just points of disagreement. At the very least, it may be possible to identify what the various parties took for granted at the time of the council.
The first and most obvious point is that all parties took for granted the happy coincidence of church and empire. As Christian apologists had recognized long before, the church’s universal vocation (“go into all nations”) and the Roman Empire’s aspirations to universality neatly complemented each other. As Vittorio Peri has put it, “The ecumenism of the Church and that of the State were so intertwined culturally and so ‘harmonized’ between themselves that they became interdependent in the common consciousness and behavior of Christians.” [6] In this situation, relationships of filiation and dependence in the ecclesiastical sphere quite naturally corresponded closely to the prevailing patterns of government and public life. The gospel spread from major cities to outlying areas, from capitals to dependencies. To a high degree, therefore, the geopolitical importance of a city and the antiquity of its church’s foundation coincided, reducing the potential for conflict between “accommodation” and “apostolicity,” at least until the rise of Constantinople opened the question in a fresh way........Here we come to the main reason why Chalcedon canon 28, in some respects so clear, was also quite ambiguous and potentially misleading. As Archbishop Peter (L’Huillier) has observed, the canon “did not have the purpose of defining the primatial prerogatives of the see of old Rome but only those of the see of Constantinople.”
Source Here. There is a great deal of info on this one giving a nice historical overview of the whole ordeal.
Article II
However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of "line item veto," ordered it struck from the Council documents. In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying ...
As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, 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).
So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon -- the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome's "line item veto." This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) -- all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.
Source Here.
Article III
What is usually called canon 28 (on the honour to be accorded the see of Constantinople) is in fact a resolution passed by the council at the 16th session. It was rejected by the Roman legates.
In the ancient Greek collections, canons 29 and 30 are also attributed to the council:
—canon 29 is an extract from the minutes of the 19th session; and
—canon 30 is an extract from the minutes of the 4th session.
Because of canon 28, which the Roman legates had opposed, the emperor Marcian and Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, sought approval for the council from the pope. This is clear from a letter of Anatolius which tries to defend the canon, and especially from a letter of Marcian which explicitly requests confirmation. Because heretics were misinterpreting his withholding approval, the pope ratified the doctrinal decrees on 21 March 453, but rejected canon 28 since it ran counter to the canons of Nicaea and to the privileges of particular churches.
The imperial promulgation was made by Emperor Marcian in 4 edicts of February 452.
Source Here.
Article IV
This last canon provoked another session of the council, the sixteenth, held on 1 November. The papal legates protested therein against this canon, alleging that they had special instructions from Pope Leo on that subject, that the canon violated the prerogatives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and was contrary to the canons (vi, vii) of the Council of Nicaea. Their protests, however, were not listened to; and the council persisted in retaining this canon in its Acts. With this incident the Council of Chalcedon was closed.
At the closing of the sessions the council wrote a letter to Pope Leo I, in which the Fathers informed him of what had been done; thanked him for the exposition of Christian Faith contained in his dogmatic epistle; spoke of his legates as having presided over them in his name; and asked for the ratification of the disciplinary matters enacted, particularly canon 28. This letter was handed to the papal legates, who departed for Rome soon after the last session of the council. Similar letters were written to Pope Leo in December by Emperor Marcian and Anatolius of Constantinople. In reply Pope Leo protested most energetically against canon xxviii and declared it null and void as being against the prerogatives of Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and against the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. Like protests were contained in the letters written 22 May, 452, to Emperor Marcian, Empress Pulcheria, and Anatolius of Constantinople. Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith. This approval was contained in letters written 21 March, 453, to the bishops who took part in the council; hence the Council of Chalcedon, at least as to the first six sessions, became an ecumenical synod, and was considered as such by all Christians, both in the time of Pope Leo and after him....
Source Here.
Article V
Canon 28 grants Constantinople equal privileges (isa presbeia) to Rome. The papal legates were not present for the vote on this canon and protested it afterward. The rule was also not ratified by Pope Leo I and is not recognized as canonical by the Catholic Church.
According to some ancient Greek collections, two additional canons are attributed to the council: canon 29, which states that an unworthy bishop cannot be demoted but can be removed, while canon 30 which grants the Egyptians time to consider their rejection of Leo's Tome.
With concerns growing that withholding Rome's approval would be interpreted as a rejection of the entire council, in 453 Leo I confirmed the council’s canons, with a protest only against canon 28.
Source Here.
Article VI
There you have it: Rome was recognized because it was the Imperial City....Nothing about St. Peter being there....Nothing about Apostolic Succession....Nothing about the Keys etc., etc. Rome's supremacy was purely political and that Canon proves it!!
Leo I (440 - 461) was Pope at that time. He was a man of towering ambition and pride. He was not going to share his city with an upstart like Constantinople. Equality was the last thing that he cared about.
Old Rome was in a very precarious position. Barbarians from the North were at the gates outside . . . greed and corruption were everywhere within. Leo needed a competitive edge if Old Rome was to survive.
It was then that he hit upon the idea of St. Peter and the Keys. If he could convince the world that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, that he was Head of the Church, and that he (Leo) was his successor then he had a powerful weapon to use against his rivals.
Source Here.
Article VII
Fr Guettee is correct that St Leo did refer to the Nicene canon in disputing the Chalcedonian canon 28 but St Leo also objected to the rationale of elevating Constantinople for political reasons to second rank. He explained to Emperor Marcian that prominence in the Church is not based upon a secular or political position but on divine appointment. He also notes that Anatolius (the Bishop of Constantinople) holds his position by Leo's favor:
"Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its glory, and, under the protection of God's right hand, long enjoy the rule of your clemency. Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine, and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation. He that covets what is not his due loses what is his own. Let it be enough for him [Anatolius] that by your piety, and by my gracious favour, he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a royal city, though he cannot make it an apostolic see; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others." (Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, page 327, Leo, Ep. 104, to the Emperor Marcian, P.L. 54.993.)
Pope St Leo did not write as one whose primacy was merely one of "ecclesiastical right." He (and many popes before and after him) claimed they were the successor of St Peter in a unique sense `by the voice of Christ in the gospel.' These claims were acknowledged in the East on various occasions (though it is important to note that the way the Petrine primacy is exercised has seen a development from that era until now). Abbe Guettee's characterization of St Leo does not fit the historical record. Instead, it can be viewed as an attempt to re-write Church history to harmonize with the post-Schism rejection of the papacy.
Source Here.
Posts
7 comments:
when you talk about "interpreting history" doesn't that further conflate the issue? if we say we can't interpret the scrpiture without an infallile interpreter, the protestant response is "then who interprets the infallible interpreters?" isn't this very issue an illustration and proof of that argument? we are left to ourselves to as you say "interpret history" which to me is simply one step removed from what protestants have been saying about the scriptures in the first place.
if the claims of rome are true, then there should be no room for interpretation- or to be more precise. if the claims of rome are true then the "real" interpretation should be so obvious that all others be foolsih.
I don't think so. It is for this reason that one should look for the true church based on more than just one's ability to personally interpret the Scriptures or historical facts for themselves. We can put 10 people in a room who believe in God and believe in Christ as being our savior with the Scriptures, a set of the Church Fathers writings and the same history books and there would be fierce disagreement among them about their beliefs.
That is why Christ chose to give us the Church the way he did. Not by mere historical works, written accounts or Scripture alone. But he did it by the Oral Word being proclaimed through an authority that he himself chose to be guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit.
the inception of the Church was not based on one's own personal interpretation of Scripture alone, nor one's own interpretation of historical accounts. there is more to the equation than mere human reason alone. It is the work of the Holy Spirit in man when the Word is proclaimed to them. In the first centuries of the Church it grew without the use of a proclaimed New Testament Canon.
Yes it is important to look at history and see if the declaration of the papacy seems plausible. But, one can choose to see what he wants to see if he is not enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Dr. White chooses to look at the history of Chalcedon as a strike against the papacy. In reading more on the subject, I see it as an account for the papacy.
Does just looking at history alone conflate the issue? In some sense it does since human reasoning alone is always subject to error. I just picked up a book published in 1891 that has a ton of good Catholic sermons and dissertations in it. I handed it over to be rebound so I do not have it on me. But the writer made some very good points regarding the pervading mentality of individual rationalism in our times. It is through this mentality that the author claims that more and more doctrine is stripped from the Christian world. Little by little even those who subscribe to Scripture alone begin to dilute the Gospel. They get Further and further away form truth because they rely on themselves and not God alone.
For instance it was unheard of for contraceptive mentality to accepted among Christians. Even those who went by the Scriptures alone interpreted the sin of Onan to a crime against God. Yet as time went on and rationalism governed the thoughts of men, they began to reject that interpretation in favor of their own personal interpretations which was based in pure rationalism.
This probably hasn't answered your question, but I think it may be one of those paradoxes that we all have to face in life. Faith precedes reason, but the two are certainly not opposed. But I think that rationalism, and reason alone will only lead a man to his own destruction.
It is not my intention to convert or convince people of the Catholic faith by reason and intellect alone. That also goes for the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, which was what I was trying to point out on Dr. White's radio show in relation to Matthew 16. Trying to take that passage out and examine it on its own by pure linguistics is nothing more that a human exercise in logic. There is more than meets the eye when it comes to all of this.
Peace be with you.
Matthew.
I see..
so you wouldn't use the "this has been the teaching of the church since forever" language this is so prevalent in most R.C apologetics. I see a few flaws in your argument.
1. circular reasoning- you say we can't use reason to interpret scripture and history in order to verify the claims of rome. then you go on to say that christ gave us the church to interpret these things for us... on what basis do you know that christ gave us the church to do this for us? would you not appeal to scripture and history?
2. you assume that protestants are relying solely on reason when they reject an R.C interpretation of matthew 16. this is not true. all protestants believe that every christian has the holy spirit, therefore it is erroneous to make that charge that we rely SOLEY on reason and rationalism (especially when you consider presuppositionalists like james white for example)
do you see these as problems?
Yes I do think it is the teaching of the church throughout the ages. But we only have limited amounts of historical record to prove it. So how one interprets the data that we have tends to sway how many people will choose their faith.
I agree that Protestants think they are guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations as the Catholic Church does. But the fact of the matter is we cannot all be correct and yet disagree on what it means. That is not how the Holy Spirit works. There is only one authentic church and one God that is the head of it.
As far as circular reasoning goes I don't see how it is any different than assuming that Scripture Alone is the only authority God has given to us. If I gave you access to all of the history books that you could read and all of the early Fathers that you could read, you would never be able to come up with a canon of the New Testament in the first 300 years. Do you take it for granted that the 27 books of the New Testament were accepted clearly in the first 300 years of Christianity? If not then why should anyone believe they are Scripture? After all isn't it the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers in the first 300 years that agreed on the New Testament books? Does history bear that out clearly? No it does not. Different churches used different books and many rejected the use of others that would later be canonized.
The book of Revelation was rejected outright by almost all of the churches until later. If you can't make a case as to the canon of Scripture in the first 300 years by the use of historical record, why do you impose the same standard on the papacy? What authority tells you what the canon is? Your own reasoning? Many churches in the fist centuries only used the Gospels. Maybe I should decide for myself that they were correct and that only the 4 Gospels should be used as New Testament Scriptures. Are you understanding my point yet?
I do see your point. but you have to admit that your presentation is MUCH
different in tone than say matatics, keating, sungenis etc..
why is it that they pretend that catholicism as we see it today is clearly attested to by scripture and history without debate or argument?
secondly, you didn't fully answer the question about the dev/hypo a la cardinal newman. what's your take on it?
To be honest I only have a limited amount of knowledge on Cardinal Newman. From what I have read I see some merit in what he says, but I would have to break out my book that he wrote on it and look into it further to see exactly what he proposed.
Subjects like purgatory are difficult to prove from the early history of the Church for example. There are some hints in the Greek Fathers as to a purifying fire after death, but nothing explicitly spelling out the doctrine of purgatory as we understand it now in the Catholic Church. So many propose that there was a limited understanding of it that was not fully developed until later on. From what I understand this is an example of his theory of the development of doctrine.
Let's say one was to be generous and grant you that Leo was "on your side" so to speak.
The trouble is, 520 bishops at an ecumenical council were not on your side. They approved and signed off on the proposition that Rome is the 1st see because of its secular standing.
So why do you side with Leo, and not the 520 bishops? Whether or not the Church considered the 28th canon to be finally part of the Chalcedoneon canons, it is a well documented witness to what 520 bishops of the Church believed about the Church.
The question then becomes, why ought I believe differently to what was professed by 520 bishops at Chalcedon? Which Ecumenical council overrides this strong testimony about the 5th century faith of the Church?
In point of fact, Leo turns about to be wrong. Constantinople already was the 2nd see. The Patriarch and Emperor wrote conciliatory letters to Leo reminding him that Canon 28 "merely sanctioned a custom of 60-70 years in the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace". The Patriarch of Constantinople continued to exercise jurisdictional power with which the canon invested him, and the Eastern Church removed any doubt when it was recognized at the Council of Trullo. Rome itself finally acknowledged Constantinople as the 2nd see, despite the arguments of Leo. Nobody can really deny that Leo got it wrong here, because history is clear about Constantinople's role. Not to mention the common sense that the Church needs the freedom to redefine priorities of sees in light of their varying fortunes.
Note also, the original ordering of honour was Rome, Alexandria then Antioch. I think it's no coincidence that in the ancient world, Alexandria was without doubt the second most important city in the empire. There can be no other explanation of why Alexandria was number two in honour, than its secular status in the ancient world. Antioch was a Petrene see, whereas Alexandria was not. Furthermore, Jerusalem was not elevated to being an apostolic see until Chalcedon in 451, despite it having the unique distinction of being founded by all the apostles, putting it several steps ahead of even Rome.
My conclusion is that even the most generous interpretation of these events is very problematic for the Papist position.
Post a Comment