Much is usually made of the cry which greeted the reading
of the Tome: “Saint Peter has spoken through Leo”. It is often forgotten
that was not all that they said; they went on to say: “Cyril so taught. Eternal
be the memory of Cyril, Leo and Cyril taught the same thing. This is the true
faith . . . This is the faith of the fathers”. (Actio III, 23, A.C.O. II,
I, 2, p. 82) It was indeed compliemtary to suggest that the bishop of Rome was
living up to the reputation for orthodoxy of his see’s founder, but it involved
something more important than a compliment to compare Leo with Cyril. Wyril was
the test for christological orthodoxy, and Cyril alone. Any doubt on that point
is dispelled by a reading of the records of the third session. Certain bishops
were hesitant about accept the Tome because of three troublesome
passages: “ut . . .et mori posset ex uno et mori non posset ex altero”; ([English:
as . .and he could die from one and could not die from the other] Actio III,
23, A.C.O. II, I, 2, pp. 81-82) “agit enim utraque forma . . .”; ([English:
for both forms act] Actio III, 23, A.C.O. II, I, 2, p. 82) and “quamvis
. . . una person sit, aliud tame nest unde . . . contumelia, aliud unde . . .
gloria . . .” ([English: although . . be one person, yet there is no other from
which . . . insults, another source. . . glory] Actio III, 23, A.C.O. II,
I, 2, p. 82) The obvious concern felt by
these bishops was, of course, that such passages seemed to imply a duality in
the oneness of the subject of the incarnation, contrary to their own Cyrillian
insistence on the single subject. Aetius attempted to demonstrate the validity of
such expressions in one way only—by comparing them to similar expressions used
by Cyril. Thus, Leo’s Tome is again accepted by Chalcedon because it can
be shown to be genuinely Cyrillian. (Actio III, 24-26, A.C.O. II, 1, 2,
pp. 81-82) Moreover, in order that lingering doubts might be set to rest
conclusively, a period of five days was set aside specifically so that all of
the bishops might compare the Tome with Cyril’s writings; a special
commission under Anatolius was set up to do the same thing. All of this effort
certainly shows that the bishops considered it a matter of paramount importance
that this statement of Latin christology should have its faithfulness to Cyril
demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt. At the fourth session, when the
commission had made its report in favour of Leo’s orthodoxy, 161 bishops registered
their individual opinions—all positive—and in almost every case included a
specific affirmation of Leo’s faithfulness to Cyril. (Actio IV, 9, A.C.O
II, 1, 2, pp. 94-109) Whenever the council dealt with Leo’s Tome, then,
the bishops quite evidently made Cyril their essential criterion of orthodoxy,
and accepted the Tome, not because it was an authoritative document from
the pen of the bishop of Rome, but because it demonstrably expressed the faith
of Cyril. Such a council was, therefore, almost unanimously Cyrillian in its
loyalty and its outlook on christology. (Patrick T. R. Gray, The Defense of
Chalcedon in the East (451-553) [Studies in the Theology of Christian
Thought 20; Leiden: Brill, 1979], 9-10, comments in square brackets added for
clarification)
It is now possible to assess the council’s final
statement of faith itself. In the first place, the council did use Leo’s “in
two natures” formula as the only possible way to exclude Eutychianism. However,
the commission did not say simply that Christ was “in two natures”, or that
there were two natures in Christ. They carefully qualified the formula so that
it could not easily carry an uncryillian sense. So, taking a cue from the
judges, they added the qualifiers ασυγχυτως and αδιαιρετως so
as to make it clear that they were speaking of a distinction of natures and not
of any division into separate entities. The same concern is shown
in their use of the word γνωριζομενον,
which guarantees that the distinction is one made by thought rather than a division
made in concreto. (Actio V, 34, A.C.O. II, I, 2, p. 129) In the
second place, the commission followed Leo’s lead in using the expression “one
and the same” and “the same” with monotonous regularity to express the unity of
the subject of the incarnation, and in setting the distinction of natures in
the context of that unity; it was “one and the same Christ, son, lord,
only-begotten” who was “known in two natures” (The word αυτος
used in this way occurs eight times in the brief statement) In
these ways, the dyophysite formula of the final statement of faith is carefully
qualified so that it can be accepted by Cyrillians as their own. (Patrick T. R.
Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451-553) [Studies in the Theology
of Christian Thought 20; Leiden: Brill, 1979], 14, emphasis in bold added)
Compare and contrast this
with the definition and criteria of papal infallibility from Vatican 1, which
dogmatically teaches
that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra,
that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians
by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority defines a doctrine of faith or
morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance
promised him in blessed Peter, possesses that infallibility with which the
divine Redeemer wished that His church be endowed in defining doctrine on faith
and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff of themselves, but
not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. (DS
3074)
