Rome
The bishop of Rome, since ancient
times also called papa or pope, claimed a primacy over the church that
derived from Christ’s commission to Peter. Their see enjoyed tremendous
prestige and importance due both to Rome’s own imperial status to its claim to
the martyrdom and relics of Peter and Paul. Churches in the Latin went from
Gaul to Africa looked to Rome for spiritual leadership, canonical direction and
jurisdiction in cases of appeal, though not as often or as consistently as Rome
might have wished. While many churches might have sought the support of Rome
when it suited their interests to do so, the pope could not expect to command
the obedience of bishops beyond central Italy on any consistent basis. In
practice Rome’s bishops often competed for influence with those of Carthage, a
major Christian centre since the second century, and Milan, rising in status by
the late fourth century, as a frequent imperial residence. In contrast to those
cities, home respectively to such towering figures as Cyprian and Ambrose, the
Roman papacy produced few major theologians prior to Leo (440-61). Rome’s role
in the doctrinal controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries, which were
driven almost exclusively by arguments and events in the Greek-speaking eastern
empire, was typically more reactive than creative. (Richard Price,
“Introduction,” in The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols.
[Translated Texts for Historians 45; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,
2005], 1:10-11)
First
Session:
Examples
of people claiming that being a Quartodeciman is a heresy:
922. Budius son of Junicus, a
Philadelphian, and Quartodeciman: Having acknowledged the true faith of
orthodoxy and entreated the most blessed Theophanius, I have approached the
most holy and catholic church, and anathematize every heresy, especially that
of the Quartodecimans in which I formerly strayed . . . 923. Hesychius, son of
Cerdanpius, a Philadelphian, councillor, and Quartodeciman: having acknowledged
the true faith of orthodoxy and made an entreaty, I have approached the most
holy and catholic church, and anathematize every heresy, especially that of the
Quartodecimans . . . 924. Rufinus, twice a Philadelphian, and Quartodeciman:
Having acknowledged the true faith of orthodoxy, I have made a prostrate
entreaty to the most holy and catholic church, and anathematize every heresy,
especially that of the Quartodecimans . . . (The Acts of the Council of
Chalcedon, 3 vols. [trans. Richard Price; Translated Texts for Historians
45; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005], 1:316-17)
The Quartodecimans, who went back to
the origins of Christianity, celebrated Easter on the same day as the Jewish
Passover, that is, on 14 Nican, irrespective on which day of the week it fell. Pope
Victor tried and failed to have their practice condemned in the 190s, but
they came to be viewed as heretics in the third century and were condemned at
the Council of Nicaea (though the main concern of the council was not over this
declining heresy, but over the question of whether Easter, now firmly on a
Sunday, should be calculated by reference to the Jewish Passover). (Ibid.,
1:316 n. 417)
15. A woman is not to be ordained
deacon before she is forty, [31] and this after a strict investigation. If
after receiving ordination and exercising her ministry for some time she gives
herself in marriage, insulting the grace of God, she is to be anathematized
together with her partner. [32] (The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3
vols. [trans. Richard Price; Translated Texts for Historians 45; Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 2005], 3:99)
[31] This was a compromise, after
confirmed by Justinian, between the practice in some regions of allowing
diaconal ordination to young unmarried women and the edict issued by Theodosius
I in 390 which restricted the office to those aged 60 or over (CTh
16.2.27).
[32] This canon does not assimilate
deaconesses to men in major orders, who were forbidden to marry: deaconesses
did not count as members of the clergy. Rather, it assimilates them to
consecrated virgins, treated in the following canon.
The text is numbered in the Greek
Acts, and the versio antiqua of the Latin, as the seventh session (or
act) and in the later Latin versions of the fifteenth. It is not a session of
the council at all but a list of 27 canons. Even though these canons are styled
an ‘act’ in both the Greek and Latin editions of the Acts, the absence of both
a date and a list of participants or signatories tells against presuming that
they were ever debated or approved at a formal session of the council; it
appears that Anatolius simply issued them subsequently in the council’s name.
The chief interest of the canons in the context of Chalcedon is their
insistence on episcopal authority over independent-minded clergy and monks.
(Ibid., 3:92)
ECUMENICITY
In all, despite elements of
fabrication in the attendance lists, it is possible to compile a register of
the bishops of who attended the council. What does it reveal about the
ecumenicity of the meeting?
It is to be noted that the only
bishops invited to the council, apart from Pope Leo, were the bishops of the
eastern provinces: Marcian’s first letter to the people revealing his plans for
a council in the east (Documents for the Council 2) is explicit that the
bishops invited would be those of ‘the east, Thrace and Illyricum’. The only
western bishops who attended, apart from the representatives of the pope, were
Valerian of Bassianae (Pannonia) and three African bishops, Aurelius of
Hadrumetum, Aurelius of Pupput, and Restitanus (see unknown). Valerian was
apparently resident at Constantinople, since he took part in the Home Synod of
448. The two Aurelii were both present in Constantinople in 448-9; one of them
and also Restianus signed the letter from the council fathers supporting Canon
28 on the privileges of the see of Constantinople (Documents after the Council
2.46-7) and thereby opposed the pope; this evidence strongly suggests that all
three were refugees from Vandal Africa, permanently resident in the east, and
more beholden to their eastern hosts than to their brethren in the west. In
all, western representation at the council, apart from papal representation, was
in effect non-existent.
How could Chalcedon, as emphatically
an eastern council, claim to be ‘ecumenical’ or universal? Apart from the
repeated use of the word ‘ecumenical’ in the council’s self-description, how
could Marcian refers in his letter to Pope Leo of 18 December 451 (Documents
after the Council 7) to ‘the agreement of priests throughout the world’ and in
his Fourth Edict confirming the council (Documents after the Council 6) to
‘bishops from almost the whole world’. The answer does not lie in the
presence of Romen delegates as representing the churches of the west, since
they claimed to represent the pope as the first of all the bishops and not as
merely the patriarch of the western churches. Nor were papal participation and
confirmation viewed as crucial, since Marcian and the eastern bishops had no
doubt of the authority of Canon 28 despite Rome’s opposition. (Likewise,
Theodosius II and the bishops of Ephesus II had no doubt of the authority of
their decrees despite Rome’s rejection of them. That Marcian sought papal confirmation
of the decrees of Chalcedon [Documents after the Council 7, 11] does not mean
that he regarded their authority as incomplete without it) What in the eastern
view made the council ecumenical, and its decrees of universal validity, was
the fact that it was an imperial council, with representatives from all the
churches under Marcian’s authority, and whose decrees were confirmed by
imperial decree. The fact that Marcian ruled only the eastern provinces was in
theory irrelevant, since he and Valentinian III were formally co-emperors of a
single state. The universality of the council depended on the claim of the
emperor at Constantinople to be God’s viceroy on earth, whose limited authority
in practice was the result of human disobedience and not the divine will. In
later Roman Catholicism the great medieval councils in the west came to be
styled ‘ecumenical’ despite the lack of eastern participation because of the
approval of their decrees by the popes; in the east it was the emperors who
played a similar role. (The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols.
[trans. Richard Price; Translated Texts for Historians 45; Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press, 2005], 3:202-3)
Fourth
Session, October 17, 451:
(1) Anatolius the most devout
archbishop of imperial Constantinople said: ‘The letter of the most sacred and
God-beloved Archbishop Leo accords with the creed of our 318 holy fathers at
Nicaea and of the 150 who subsequently assembled at Constantinople and
confirmed the same faith, and with the proceedings of the ecumenical and holy
council at Ephesus under the most blessed Cyril, [now] among the saints, when
it deposed the infamous Nestorius. Therefore I have both expressed agreement
and signed willingly.’
(2-4) The most devout bishops
Paschasinus and Lucentius and the most devout presbyter Boniface,
representatives of the apostolic see, said through the most devout Paschasinus:
‘It is clear and cannot be disputed that the faith of the most blessed pope of
the apostolic see Archbishop Leo is one and in accord with the creed of the 318
fathers who met at Nicaea, that it upholds both the creed of the 150 who
convened at Constantinople and also the decrees of Ephesus under Cyril of holy
memory when Nestorius was deposed on account of his errors; it differs from
them in no way at all. Because of this it has been demonstrated that the letter
of the most blessed pope, which renewed this faith because of the efforts of
Eutyches, accords with the same [creed], having one and the same spirit.’
(5) Maximus the most devout bishop of
Antioch in Syria said: ‘The letter of the most holy Leo archbishop of imperial
Rome accords with the definitions of the 318 holy fathers at Nicaea, of the 150
at Constantinople New Rome, and with the faith defined at Ephesus by the most
holy Bishop Cyril, and I have subscribed.’
. . .
[list of 32 bishops, including
Quintillus, Atticus, Martyius, and Eutychius]
Concerning the letter sent by his beatitude all our doubts have been
resolved by the most holy bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, representing the
apostolic see, who have explained to us what the wording seemed to separate;
for when in accordance with the decision of your authority we went to the most
holy Anatolius archbishop of great Constantinople and to the most holy council
in session with him, our of a need to be convinced about a few points on which
we were in doubt, we found their holinesses well able to resolve our doubts.
For they anathemized every man who separates from the Godhead the flesh of our
Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, which he united to himself from the holy
Virgin Mary the Theotokos, and who denies that he possesses both the
divine and human attributes without confusion, change or division. Therefore,
having been convinced and being of the opinion that the letter is in complete
harmony with the aforesaid holy fathers, we have agreed to it and signed.’
(99) Leonitus the most devout bishop
of Ascalon in Palestinia Prima, (100) Photinus the most devout bishop of Lydda,
(101) Paul the most devout bishop of Anthedon, (102) Heraclius the most devout
bishop of Azotus, (103) Stephen the most devout bishop of Jamnia, (104)
Polychronius the most devout bishop at Antipatris, (105) Pancratius the most
devout bishop of Livias, (106) Zosimus the most devout bishop of Menois, (107)
Anianus the most devout bishop of Capitolias in Palestina Secunda, (108)
Zebennus the most devout bishop of Pella, (109) John the most devout bishop of
Tiberias, (110) John the most devout bishop of Gadara, (111) Beryllus the most
devout bishop of Aela in Palestina Tertia, (112) Aretas the most devout bishop
of Elusa, (113) Musonius the most devout bishop of Zoara, and (114) Marcian the
most devout bishop of Iotane, making their declaration from a document said
through Bishop Anianus: ‘All of us who have always upheld and uphold the creed
of the 318 holy fathers who assembled at Nicaea, and pray to depart from life
with it, and we also follow that of the 150 fathers, that is discordant in no
respect. We agree also to the proceedings and decrees of the most blessed Cyril
of most holy memory, then bishop of Alexandria, at beloved Leo archbishop of
Rome was read to us, we assented to most of it as correct and in accord with
the aforesaid; but some statements in it struck us as implying a separation and
division for those who wish to think that way. At first in the presence of your
clemency we were in doubt about these statements; on being told to depart from
your magnificence, we were informed by the most holy fathers, bishops and
presbyters, who represent the most God-belved and holy Archbishop Leo, that
they teach no division in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ but one and the
same Lord the Son of God. Therefore we have assented and signed the Tome.
We think that these men, if bidden by your greatness will now make the same
attention for the benefit of the whole world.’
. . .
(158) Leucius the most devout bishop
of Apollonoshieron in the province of Lydia said: ‘I have found that the
definition of the 318 holy fathers and the 150, the letter of Cyril of sacred
memory, and that which has now been read from the most sacred Archbishop Leo
are in accord. Since I believe accordingly, I have signed the letter.’
(159) Polycarp the most devout bishop
of Tabala in the province of Syria said: ‘Since I believe in, and assent to,
the definition of the 318 holy fathers who assembled at Nicaea and the 150 in
renowned Constantinople, and the letter of the most holy archbishop Leo that
has been translated, I have signed.’
(160) John the most devout bishop of
Alinda in the province of Caria said: ‘the letter of the most holy Pope Leo
accords with the creed of the 318 holy fathers and of the 150 who assembled in
renowned Constantinople and with the letter of Cyril of blessed memory. Since
I believe accordingly, I have signed.’
(161) Julian the most devout presbyter
of Halicarnassus, representing Calandion bishop of the same city, said: ‘I have
found that the letter written by the most holy Archbishop Leo is in accordance
with the definition of the 318 and the 150 and the letter of Cyril of sacred
memory. In assent to it, I have signed.’ (The Acts of the Council of
Chalcedon, 3 vols. [trans. Richard Price; Translated Texts for Historians
45; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005], 2:126-28, 138-39, 146)
