Saturday, July 20, 2024

Patrick T. R. Gray on the Reception of the Tome of Leo During the Council of Chalcedon

 

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)