Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Canon # 28 of Chalcedon


Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Recommended Posts

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

#28 grants equal privileges (isa presbeia) to Constantinople as of Rome because Constantinople is the New Rome as renewed by canon 36 of the Quinisext Council (the papal legates were not present for the vote on this canon, and protested it afterwards)

This is what Wikipedia says

do we accept that canon?


sam

this is from the Catholic encylcopedia:
[quote]    * The twenty-eighth ratified the third canon of the Council of Constantinople (381), and decreed that since the city of Constantinople was honoured with the privilege of having the emperor and the Senate within its walls, its bishop should also have special prerogatives and be second in rank, after the Bishop of Rome. In consequence thereof he should consecrate the metropolitan bishops of the three civil Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Cappadocia.

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.[/quote]

Edited by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will look more into this or maybe another better scholar will comment, but given the immediate info....


If the Papal Legates did not accept it, then no, espcially if it seems to contradict a known teaching (Extraordinary Papal Infallibility) and they had explicit instructions from the Pope on the matter that did not match what the did itself.

Edited by Theoketos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laudate_Dominum

To first give a short answer: [b]no[/b]. According to the official text of Chalcedon that 28th canon was excluded. The letters of the council fathers, the records of the council, as well as the writings of those who wrote about the council after its conclusion will testify to this fact. You can look to the writings of all the Greek historians for further confirmation; for example, Theodore the Lector, John Skolastikas and Dionysius Exegius. The subsequent Popes also make reference to this fact (notably Pope St. Gelasius and Pope Symmachus). But certainly the history and documentation of the council itself makes this abundantly clear on its own.

[quote]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.[/quote]
This statement is basically true, but its not the whole story. I believe the Council did "close" with this canon intact but it was retracted after the Pope refused to ratify that particular canon. You could either look at it in the sense that the Council was closed but not officially confirmed and ratified until the authority of the Pope came into the picture, or you could look at it that it was closed but this canon was only a matter of discipline and the Pope was able to exercise his authority and undo it. Based on documents from the time of the event that I've looked at, I tend to go with the former view. I will present some stuff below which supports this view.


Some have tried to leverage Chalcedon in such a way as to undermine Papal authority, suggesting that the expunged canon 28 shows that papal primacy is just based on Rome's temporal primacy at one point in church history and that it is not a theological reality instituted by Christ. Such assertions are quite remarkable to me. Ironically canon 28 of Chalcedon is more often used to demonstrate papal authority in the ancient Church.

It is true that canon 28 of Chalcedon sought to give the Bishop of Constantinople a kind of primacy among the Bishops second only the ecumenical patriarch the Pope of Rome ([i]"[Constantinople] should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take [b]second place [/b]after her [Rome]" [/i]- Canon 28). This fact alone seems to indicate something of the primacy of the Pope of Rome. But what must not be over looked is the fact that the council fathers asked for Pope Leo to ratify this canon ("[i]that your Holiness will [b]approve and confirm [/b]our decree[/i]") and when Leo denied this ratification is was struck from the canons. And it should not be forgotten that Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople wrote a letter of apology to the Pope for this attempt at an innovative canonical insertion.

It should also be noted that this canon was seen as merely a matter of discipline (as the acts and related letters make clear; they describe it as "[i]for the maintenance of good order and discipline[/i]"), it was not making a doctrinal statement about a secondary primacy of Constantinople but was attempting to enact a new disciplinary structure based on the fact that temporally Constantinople had a greater importance. Pope Leo sent a letter to the council fathers declaring this canon null and void and that was the end of it. And the whole context of the canon is not one of spiritual and doctrinal primacy, but of temporal jurisdiction and disciplinary matters.

Critics of the Papacy try to assert that this canon (never mind that the Pope refused to ratify it and it was removed) somehow proves that the primacy of Rome is based only on a kind of temporal status (because Rome was the center of the empire) and that since Constantinople was more the center at that time, they wanted to make this the "new Rome" in every sense. But clearly the meaning (as indicated by the acts and letters, as well as preceding tradition) is not this at all, for if Papal primacy was simply based on this fact, why would Constantinople have been only "second" to Rome? It is clear that they wanted to give Constantinople more power over the temporal ecclesiastical affairs of the Church in the East because it was the center of the empire and of worldly affairs. To say that it meant that the Papal primacy is merely worldly/disciplinary and not theological is quite absurd if one is being objective and honest. And if you read the expunged canon the clear sense of the statement that Constantinople be "elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs.. second only to Rome" is merely temporal. It gets more specific and speaks of subordinating the ecclesiastical activities of the churches of Pontus, Asia and Thrace to the see of Constantinople. It was a temporal shifting around of jurisdiction on the basis of Constantinople's worldly primacy and the claim that this indicates that the Primacy of Rome is merely the same as this is clearly unfounded and in fact contradicted by the council.

The council fathers address Leo thus when seeking his ratification of the canon: [i]"We are confident you will shed upon the Church of Constantinople a ray of that Apostolic splendor which you possess, for you have ever cherished this church and you are not at all niggardly in imparting your riches to your children."[/i]
And
[i]"Vouchsafe then, most Holy and Blessed Father, to accept what we have done in your name, and in a friendly doubt that this good deed should proceed in the first instance from you provident hand. But we, wished to gratify the pious Christian emperors, and the illustrious Senate, and the capital of the empire have judged that an Ecumenical council was the fittest occasion for effecting this measure."[/i]
And
[i]"We have informed you of everything with a view of proving our sincerity and of obtaining your confirmation and consent"[/i]

And the Patriarch of Constantinople said to Pope Leo:
[i]"The holy Synod and I have submitted this canon to your Holiness in order to obtain your assent and confirmation, which I beseech your Holiness not to withhold."[/i]

Let us also remember that the council was seen to be presided over by the Pope himself, through the presence of the Papal legate, Bishop Paschasinus, who he had sent. The council fathers made some interesting statements regarding this fact:

[i]"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."[/i]

[i]"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."[/i]

[i]"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 who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.

"Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, representing the Apostolic See, said; Flavian of blessed memory hath most holily and perfectly expounded the faith. His faith and exposition agrees with the epistle of the most blessed and apostolic man, the bishop of Rome." [/i]

Prior to the council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo had written an encyclical letter that was distributed to all the Churches. The acts of Chalcedon reveal this letter was considered paramount in the formulation of its decrees. Initially Leo was opposed to the council as he thought it would lead to schism. I recall reading that he wanted the bishops to each read and sign his earlier letter to Flavian, who was the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time, but the letter itself was not enough to quell the controversy so the bishops met to decide on a formulation that would address all of the issues at hand.

During the council this letter of Pope Leo was read aloud and was really a sort of touchstone of orthodoxy that guided the proceedings. The acts of this council record the response of the council fathers following the initial reading of this letter; I think it clearly reveals the attitude which the fathers had regarding the teachings of the Pope.

[i]"After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo."[/i]

The acts of the second session of Chalcedon record the words of council fathers who spoke of Leo as "confirming the faith" proclaimed by Chalcedon. As well as this sort of thing: [i]"this is the true faith: this is the holy faith: this is the everlasting faith: into this we were baptized: into this we baptize: we all so believe: so believes Leo, the Pope."[/i]

This is also interesting; the council fathers asked for more time to put together a document and said this:

[i]"we therefore pray your magnificence to give us time, so that we may be able to arrive at the truth of the matter with a fitting document, although so far as we are concerned, who have subscribed the letter of the most holy Leo, nothing further is needed."[/i]

Even though Leo's encyclical did not claim to be an intentional and definitive dogmatic end to the dispute, it is clear that his voice was taken to have a unique authority. But the whole point of the council was to deliberate and reach an agreement. Leo's letter perhaps needed further clarification and exposition by the council. I just skimmed over the council texts and this is the impression I have. Just for fun I will give a few little quotes.
These words from session III of Chalcedon are telling as to the general view of the Pope:

[i]"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod [b]together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith[/b], hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness."[/i]

And it speaks of things being address for evaluation to [i]"the most holy and beloved-of-God ecumenical archbishop and patriarch of great Rome Leo, and to the holy and ecumenical Synod assembled at Chalcedon[/i]".
It is interesting that the Pope of Rome is so often described as the ecumenical patriarch and put in the same sentence as the council itself with regards to issues of doctrinal importance and authority. The clear necessity and primacy of the Pope in doctrinal matters is all over the place.

The fourth session is equally as interesting. The session begins with the words:

[i]"Let the reverend council now declare what seems good concerning the faith, since those things which have already been disposed of have been made manifest."[/i]

And at the end of this preface mentions the writings of Leo as a primary source of the council, describing them thus:

[i]"The writings of that blessed man, Leo, [b]Archbishop of all the churches[/b], who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, shew what the true faith is."[/i]

In the fifth session the council fathers express that they did not set out to contradict Leo but rather to clarify or supplement his teaching:
[i]"[b]Add [/b]then to the definition, according to the judgment of our most holy father Leo, that there are two natures in Christ united unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly."[/i]

Then there is the definition of faith proclaimed by Chalcedon which states such things as:

[i]"And, [b]for the confirmation of the orthodox doctrines[/b], it has rightly added to these the letter of the President of the great and old Rome, the most blessed and holy Archbishop Leo, which was addressed to Archbishop Flavian of blessed memory, for the removal of the false doctrines of Eutyches, [b]judging them to be agreeable to the confession of the great Peter, and as it were a common pillar against misbelievers[/b]."[/i]

And certainly letters of those involved at the council, written with regards to the council itself, testify to the belief of those present. To discount this is to be offering absurd interpretations. I'll just quote a few letters briefly.

[i]...That you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek.[/i] - Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches

[i]When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness...[/i] - Patriarch of Constantinople to Pope Leo

[i]Blessed Peter, preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook... To him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see, but also primate of all bishops.[/i] - Pope Leo

[i]But in such a way that He put the principal charge on the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. He wanted His gifts to flow into the entire Body from Peter himself, as it were from the Head. Thus, a man who had dared to separate himself from the solidity of Peter would realize that he no longer shared in the Divine mystery.[/i] - Pope Leo

[i]Peter has spoken thus through Leo![/i] - Acts of Chalcedon

[i]You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter.[/i]
[i]Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members.[/i]
[i][Leo], who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness.[/i]
[i]And as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.[/i]
- Chalcedonian fathers to Pope Leo

The Patriarch of Constantinople wrote this to Leo regarding the canon #28 which was removed:

[i]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, [b]the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness[/b]. 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[/i]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...