THE BISHOP OF ROME AND THE

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, AD 451:

WHY POPE LEO I’S DOCTRINAL AND

DISCIPLINARY DEMANDS WERE MET

By

Shaun Retallick

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of St. Michael’s College and the

Historical Department of the Toronto School of Theologyin partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in Theology Awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College.

Toronto 2011

© Shaun D. W. Retallick

ABSTRACT

“The Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, AD 451:Why Pope Leo I’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands were Met”

Master of Arts in Theology, 2011

by Shaun D. W. Retallick

Historical Department

University of St. Michael’s College

Preceding the Council of Chalcedon (451), and at it through his legates, Bishop Leo I of

Rome issued numerous doctrinal and disciplinary demands in opposition to the Second Council

of Ephesus (449): to reverse its decrees, and rectify injustices. These demands were met and this

study provides an analysis of the reasons why. Specifically, after providing historical context,

Eastern Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria’s motivations for summoning the Council of

Chalcedon are provided, as well as Leo’s influences thereon. Thereafter, four major reasons are

provided for why Leo’s demands were met. Firstly, there was a recognition by conciliar bishops

that his demands, especially his dyophysitism, conformed with apostolic and patristic teaching.

Secondly, the bishops acknowledged that Leo wielded an elevated authority as bishop of Rome.

Thirdly, Leo and his legates were effective in diplomacy. Finally, there was co-operation from

the imperial East whose motivations corresponded with those of Leo.

ii

To Mom and Dad: for your constant

love, support, and encouragement

throughout my studiesand always.

Also, to my friend and mentor

Msgr. Norbert Glasmacher without whom I would

not be a student of Church history.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1

I. Pre-Chalcedon: The Primacy and Influence of the Bishop of Rome.......................................5

II.A. Immediate Background to the Council of Chalcedon.......................................................18

II.B. Leo’s Ecclesiology: Roman Primacy and the Bishop of Rome in the Universal Church....................................................................................................25

III.A. The Summoning of the Council of Chalcedon: Influences of Leo and Imperial Officials........................................................................29

III.B.i. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: Apostolicity...................................................................................................................39

III.B.ii. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: His Office - Bishop of Rome.......................................................................................51

III.B.iii. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: Leo and Diplomacy.....................................................................................................74

III.B.iv. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: Eastern Imperial Interests.............................................................................................85

CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................103

Bibliography................................................................................................................................106

iv

INTRODUCTION

The Council of Chalcedon was called by Marcian, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire

(r. 450-457), in May, 451, and took place at the basilica of St. Euphemia from October 8 until

November 1, 451.1 Its principal purpose, moreover, was to resolve the ongoing christological

dispute surrounding the nature/s of Christ, which had become incredibly more complicated

following the Second Council of Ephesus (i.e., Ephesus II) of 449. The latter had been chaired by

Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, and approved by Marcian’s predecessor, Theodosius II; it

declared the monophysitism of Eutyches, an influential archimandrite from nearby

Constantinople, to be orthodox. It also deposed eight bishops affiliated with dyophysitism or

Antiochene theology on the grounds of accepting Nestorianism, among other doctrinal and

disciplinary offenses. Further, Roman Bishop Leo I’s representative at the council, Deacon

Hilary, had presented Leo’s Tomus ad Flavianum (i.e., Tome) that condemned Eutyches and his

monophysitism, and supported dyophysitism, but Dioscorus would not allow it to be read. These

outcomes from Ephesus II resulted in a schism between the East and the West as Leo and

Emperor Valentinian III refused to recognize it. Despite Leo’s requests to Theodosius, another

council was not called until Marcian became emperor.

The decision to summon the council by Marcian was in large part due to Leo’s request

that such occur. Moreover, among the decisions made prior to and at Chalcedon were a series of

doctrinal and disciplinary matters upon which Leo had insisted. His doctrinal demands included,

1

1Richard Price, and Michael Gaddis, ed. and trans., The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 2005), 1:39, 42, 44. The majority of references to and quotations from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, as well as related documents, including letters, are from Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Such will be cited with the volume and page number/s followed by the session and paragraph numbers. Where the session and paragraph numbers are absent, Price and Gaddis’ analysis is being referred to, not primary documents.

the approval of his Tome, which supported dyophysitism; reaffirmed condemnations of Eutyches

and his monophysitism, as well as the maintenance of Ephesus I’s condemnation of

Nestorianism; and the Roman legates demand that the council’s dogmatic formula contained

Leo’s Tome. Among Leo’s disciplinary demands were the return of Flavian’s remains to

Constantinople, and the deposition of Dioscorus. Leo, further, was resolved to reunify orthodox

bishops. To this end, he sought the restoration of bishops unjustly deposed at Ephesus II to their

churches and episcopal privileges, the reconciliation of repentant bishops who had lapsed at

Ephesus II, and allowing repentant bishops to retain their rank who were appointed by

Theodosius II to replace bishops unjustly deposed at Ephesus II. The aforementioned facts have

been generally accepted by historians. Why exactly Leo’s demands were met at the council,

however, remains unclear and debated among them. This is in large part because of the council’s

highly dynamic makeup of complimentary, and yet competing, ecclesial and secular forces,

including a large gathering of bishops,2 which witnessed an unprecedented level of imperial

influence, and occurred during a period of significant developments in the primacy of the Bishop

of Rome, especially under Leo’s reign.

Thus, some monographs on the council discuss this issue briefly, while others who

discuss it in more depth tend to hold a view that can be classified under one of two major

positions. The first position is that Leo, as Bishop of Rome, exerted a direct influence on the

council: the bishops acknowledged that he held authority as successor of St. Peter (albeit not

2

2Traditionally, this council was understood to have been composed of 500-520 bishops. However, based on an extensive analysis of the Acts of the council, a figure of c. 370 bishops is likely, although attendance at particular sessions varied. This discrepancy was due, in part, to the tendency among metropolitans to sign conciliar decisions on behalf of absent suffragan bishops: Price and Gaddis 1:43.

absolute authority as claimed by the papacy).3 Further, Leo especially, but also his

representatives, were very effective at persuading individuals to support his position.4 The

second major position is that the conciliar bishops were pressured or directed to accept Leo’s

demands by imperial officials when said demands benefitted or were supported by political

leaders of the Eastern Empire, be they Empress Pulcheria, Emperor Marcian, or the Eastern

generals Aspar and Zeno.5 It is too simplistic, however, to argue that one of these positions can

adequately account for the acceptance of Leo’s demands at the council. Rather, this thesis

demonstrates that Leo’s doctrinal and disciplinary demands were met at the Council of

Chalcedon due to numerous inter-related factors, especially the influence of Leo as bishop of

Rome and as a diplomat, the Eastern imperial agenda, and also because Leo’s doctrinal positions

were found to be in accord with Apostolic tradition by conciliar bishops.

In order to adequately illustrate these factors, the first three sections of this thesis supply

relevant and important background information, beginning with a succinct examination of the

primacy and influence of the Bishop of Rome from the first century up until the beginning of

Leo’s reign (440). Thereafter, the context of the Council of Chalcedon is explained, beginning

3

3For example, Klaus Schatz holds this position: Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present, translated by John A. Otto and Linda A. Maloney (Collegeville, MI: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 43-45.4For example, Susan Wessel presents this position as part of her argument: Susan Wessel, Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome (Boston: Brill, 2008), 261-261, 271.5For example, Wilhelm De Vries argues that Leo’s demands were met because imperial officials agreed with him: Wilhelm De Vries, “The Reasons for the Rejection of the Council of Chalcedon by the Oriental Orthodox Churches,” in Christ in East and West, edited by Paul R. Fries and Tiran Nersoyan, 3-13 (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987), 4-5. Kenneth G. Holum argues that Pulcheria was chiefly responsible for the outcomes of the council: Kenneth G. Holum, Theodosian Empresses (Berkeley: California UP, 1982), 216. Richard W. Burgess argues that the decisions of Chalcedon were approved by the bishops due to imperial interference brought about because such approval was desired by Pulcheria who married Marcian, through the intervention of the general Aspar, on the condition that this would occur: Richard W. Burgess, “The Accession of Marcian in Light of Chalcedonian Apologetic and Monophysite Polemic,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 86/87 (1993/4): 49, 62-65. George A. Bevan holds the view of Burgess but expands his thesis. He argues that Marcian enforced the decisions at the council as part of a marriage agreement with Pulcheria, but that this was orchestrated not only by the general Aspar but also the general Zeno. Moreover, he also did such in an effort to gain Western recognition that he was the legitimate emperor of the East, which the Western emperor, Valentinian III, had refused to accept: George A. Bevan, “The Case of Nestorius: Ecclesiastical Politics in the East, 428-451 CE.” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2005.

with the Home Synod of Constantinople (448) and concluding with Ephesus II. Finally, a brief

explanation is provided of Leo’s understanding of the Roman Bishop’s preeminent authority as

heir of the Apostle Peter, vis-à-vis that of other bishops. Following this introduction is a

historical analysis of Leo’s influence with regard to the Council of Chalcedon, beginning with

Marcian’s decision to convene the council, his motivations, and Leo’s involvement therein.

Thereafter is an examination of why Leo’s doctrinal and disciplinary demands were met at and

for the council -- both those made himself or through his legates --, and this is shown to have

occurred for the aforementioned four major reasons. Specifically, the council recognized that the

dyophysite doctrine contained in Leo’s Tome and his other related demands were consistent with

the teaching of the Apostles and Fathers. Further, there was a recognition of Leo’s authority as

bishop of Rome at the council, which is examined with an emphasis on what this meant to the

predominantly Eastern bishops. Moreover, Leo’s demands were met due to his effective

diplomacy and persuasive approach and that of his conciliar legates. The final major cause was

the co-operation of the imperial East, especially Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria, with

Leo and his legates, which is examined along with the former’s motivations.

4

I. PRE-CHALCEDON: THE PRIMACY AND INFLUENCE

OF THE BISHOP OF ROME

In order to properly understand the influence of Leo at the Council of Chalcedon in his

capacity as the bishop of Rome, it is first essential to comprehend how this See, its bishop and

his authority were historically understood in both western and eastern Christendom. To this end,

a description and analysis is provided of various writings regarding the authority and honour of

the Roman See and bishopric, as well as of particular papal attempts to influence doctrine,

discipline, and practices outside the See of Rome. Since both the history and scholarly debate

surrounding the rise and early development of the Roman papacy is extensive and beyond the

scope of this thesis, only select texts and situations will be utilized beginning with the first

century and concluding with the context just prior to Leo’s reign (440).

Prior to the Council of Nicaea, writings from both Roman and non-Roman sources

indicate that the Roman See held a place of preeminence. The earliest such references are present

within First Clement (c. 96),6 the oldest extant writing by a Christian, the New Testament

excepted. Within this letter from the Roman Church to the Corinthian Church, the former

rebuked the latter for internal disturbances, specifically the deposition of several presbyters,

which the former judged to be unjust. As a result, the Roman Church instructed the Corinthians

to restore the deposed presbyters to their office and for the deposers to yield to their leadership.7

Many scholars recognize in this letter an implicit claim to authority by the Roman Church over

5

6For an extensive review of scholarship on First Clement, cf. John Fuellenbach, Ecclesiastical Office and the Primacy of Rome: An Evaluation of Recent Theological Discussion of First Clement (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1980). 7J. F. McCue,“The Roman Primacy in the Second Century and the Problem of the Development of Dogma,” Theological Studies 25 (1964): 164.

the Corinthians.8 That the Corinthians acknowledged this authority is seen from the fact that they

followed the letter’s instructions, and did not contest the Roman Church’s interference in their

local church. In fact, this letter from Rome was in response to a request for intervention from

Corinthians, despite the substantial geographical distance between them.9 Due to such factors,

First Clement illustrates that the Roman Church was considered an authoritative see in the early

Church. This point, however, should not be overstated, nor be taken to mean that the Roman

Church was understood at this time to have held authority in a juridic sense, which had yet to

develop. Rather, this church was most likely considered authoritative in the sense of reliable due

to its apostolic background and reputation.10

A primary factor in the development of the authority of the bishop of Rome was the

tradition that the “pre-eminent” apostles Peter and Paul had both preached in Rome, the former

recognized as being “the first of the Twelve and chief of the apostles.”11 Both apostles, moreover,

were martyred in Rome, a fact first implied in First Clement, and Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to

the Romans (c. 110), and explicitly stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (fl. c. 166/174) in his

letter to Soter, bishop of Rome (r. 166-175).12 Rome’s strong connections with these apostles

made it an apostolic see and the only patriarchate in the West, in contrast to the numerous sees of

apostolic origin in the east, such as Antioch and Corinth. However, despite the apostolic status of

6

8For instance, cf.: Aidan Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism (Collegeville, MI: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 155; Johannes Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 1 (Notre Dame: Christian Classics, 1983), 46-47; Walter Ullmann, s.v. “Papacy: 1. Early Period. 2. Medieval Period,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (New York: Gale, 2003), 830-831; Stephen K. Ray, Upon this Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 122. McCue does not hold this position, but notes other scholars who do: McCue, 165, especially fn. 6.9Ray, 122. Ullmann argued that First Clement demonstrates that “...in the primitive Christian period the Roman Church was credited with an authority superior to that of any other patriarchal see...”: Ullmann, “Papacy,” 830.10Schatz notes that others, such as Dionysius of Corinth, also sent letters of rebuke to churches, specifically, Sparta, Athens, Nicomedia, Gortyna, Amastris, and Cnossos. However, he notes that the Roman Church is never rebuked but only praised, and speculates that different churches could not necessarily use the “same tone” in rebuking one another: Schatz, 5.11Nichols, 153.12For relevant passages from First Clement, and Ignatius’ and Dionysius’ respective letters, cf. Ray, 70-71, 72, 74.

such churches in the east, the Roman Church’s affiliation with Peter and Paul granted it “...a

correlative pre-eminence in the total network of communion of local churches that made up the

Great Church of the early Christian period.”13

The pre-eminence of the Roman Church is made explicit by Ignatius of Antioch who

wrote to it, as well as separately to six other churches (c. 110). In his letters to the latter, he

rebuked, instructed, and warned of heresies and of the need for unity, particularly with one’s

bishop. Ignatius’ letter to the Roman Church, however, contained only praise, as well as a request

that Roman Christians not attempt to save him from martyrdom in Rome to which he was being

brought. As to the former point, the beginning of Ignatius’ letter is particularly important, for

when it is compared with the openings of the other letters there is a substantial distinction: its

praises are much longer and more gracious. Moreover, two phrases particularly indicate that the

Roman Church had a “special importance” to Ignatius, both of which involve the word

prokavqhmai.14 Firstly, he said that this church h{tiV kai; prokavqhtai ejn tovpw/ cwrivou

Rwmaivwn, which can be translated as: “presides in the place of the district of the Romans.”15 The

word cwrivou refers to a limited region and, thus, the phrase cannot mean that the Roman Church

presides over the entire Roman Empire but, more likely, refers to authority over the region of the

city of Rome.16 The second phrase is that the Roman Church prokaqhmέnh th:V ajgavphV, that is,

7

13Nichols, 154.14McCue, 172.15The original Greek can be found in Quasten, 69. This translation is from Francis Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops: the Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church (New York: The Newman Press, 2001), 112.16Sullivan, 112; McCue, 172.

“presiding/presides over/in love/charity” or is “pre-eminent in love.”17 This phrase has been

more controversial, but many scholars agree that it refers to the Roman Church’s known

charitable works,18 and likely refers to both material and spiritual assistance.19 Ignatius refers to

Rome’s spiritual assistance when he states that the Roman Church has “never envied anyone;

you taught others. And my wish is that those instructions which you issue when teaching

disciples will remain in force.”20 Ignatius’ praise of Rome’s preaching, thus, indicates the context

of that church’s preeminence: not a juridical but, rather, spiritual leadership.21

Another early non-Roman witness to the Roman Church’s preeminence was Irenaeus,

bishop of Lugdunum (c. 115-c. 202). In his efforts combatting Gnosticism, Irenaeus argued that

all that was needed for salvation was contained in the four Gospels, which were faithfully

passed-on by the Apostles and their successors: apostolic ecclesiastical succession guaranteed the

Apostolic faith. Moreover, for the sake of brevity, Irenaeus appealed to the Roman Church to

illustrate this point, and provided a list of succession.22 He called this church, “the greatest, most

ancient and well-known...,” and noted that it was founded by “the two most glorious Apostles

Peter and Paul.” Of particular importance, he argued that “all churches must agree” with the

Roman Church because of its potentiorem principalitatem.23 While this latter phrase can mean

8

17The original Greek can be found in Quasten, 69. “Presiding over love” or a similar variant is used by Ray, 136; Nichols, 155; Quasten, 69; Sullivan, 112; J. Michael Miller, The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development, and Mission of the Papacy (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1995), 76. “Preeminent in love” is used by Schatz, 5; Robert B. Eno, “Speak for Yourself: the Roman View” and “Two Styles of Leadership: Leo and Gelasius,” in The Rise of the Papacy, 87-129 (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier Inc., 1990), 35. McCue argues that “The least unsatisfactory...” translation that maintains the phrase’s meaning is “guardian or protector of Christian love”: McCue, 173.18Sullivan, 112; Eno, 35; Harnack, referred to in Quasten, 69. Schatz argues that this view has “merit”: Schatz, 6.19Schatz, 6.20Quoted in Sullivan, 113.21Schatz, 6. Ullmann describes the Roman Church’s preeminence as based in its “moral authority” prior to Constantine’s granting of religious freedom in 313: Ullmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (London: Routledge, 2003), 4-5.22Miller, 78; Eno, 38-39.23Quoted in McCue, 176.

“more powerful preeminence,”24 the Latin is likely a translation of the Greek word ἀρχή and,

thus, refers to the Roman Church’s “...more imposing foundation,” referring to its being founded

by Peter and Paul.25 For Irenaeus, “...this dual apostolicity, authenticated by the seal of

martyrdom, was reason enough to single out Rome among all the churches. This preeminence

(principalitas) of the Roman church was widely recognized in the first centuries.”26 Like

Ignatius, its authority was not juridical; “all churches” should follow its doctrines due to its

“more imposing foundation,” which guaranteed the apostolicity of its teaching,27 and was the

basis of its “moral authority.”28

Connected with the development and recognition of the Roman Church’s non-juridical

teaching authority was its increasing prominence within the universal Church’s communio. Since

both the Church as Body of Christ and the Apostolic faith transcended the local churches, the

latter held communion with one another. To this end, local bishops kept lists of orthodox bishops

with whom they were in communion, in part so that they could write “letters of communion” on

behalf of local Christians traveling to other regions, informing the bishops of their destinations

so that they could participate in the latter Christian churches. Since maintaining accurate lists of

such bishops was difficult, many bishops maintained communion through the ties of bishops of

churches in politically and economically important cities, especially Rome, Alexandria, and

Antioch. As a result, being in communion with the Roman Church gradually became very

important. In part, this was due to developments within the Roman Church itself, including a

9

24Miller, 79.25McCue, 177-178. While not noting the Greek, Miller agrees with this conclusion. Quasten supports the view that potentiorem principalitatem should be translated as “...more efficient leadership”: Quasten, 303.26Miller, 79.27McCue, 178; Miller, 79. Since other churches, too, had apostolic succession to guarantee the apostolicity of their teaching, Rome is not unique with respect to its teaching authority, for Irenaeus, but the church par excellence: Quasten, 303; McCue, 178.28Ullmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, 4-5.

growth in population and clergy and its extensive care for churches throughout the empire. Also,

as other churches grew, especially in the west, they appealed to Rome to settle disputes, which

set further precedent for that church’s authority.29

Another important factor in the development of papal primacy was biblical interpretation

that emphasized the spiritual authority that Peter had held over the Church, and which bishops of

Rome, as his successors, were claimed to have as well. Of course, this happened to varying

degrees by different Church Fathers. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258), for instance, recognized

all bishops to have equal authority by virtue of being successors of Peter who had been given the

keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and loose (cf. Matt 16:16-19), and the

command to feed Christ’s sheep (cf. John 21:15-19); all bishops held the cathedra Petri.30

However, Cyprian nonetheless contended that the bishop of Rome yielded a particular non-

juridical authority beyond that of other bishops. By virtue of being the church of which Peter was

the first bishop and was martyred, the Church of Rome held the cathedra Petri in a special sense

and was “the principal church [i.e., ecclesia principalis] whence sacerdotal unity has sprung.”31

For these reasons, Cyprian held that, among all bishops, the Bishop of Rome’s ruling on a matter

“took the foremost place.”32

Stephen, bishop of Rome (r. 254-257), utilized Cyprian’s phrase cathedra Petri and

expanded his ecclesiology to develop the first theory of papal primacy. Whereas Cyprian had

believed that all bishops held the cathedra Petri and the bishop of Rome held it in a special

10

29Schatz, 17-19.30Cf. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Faith 4 in William A. Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970), 220; Schatz, 20; Ray, 180-182.31Cf. Cyprian, Letter of Cyprian to Cornelius of Rome 59, Quoted in Schatz, 20; Cyprian of Carthage, The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage Vol. 3, translated by G.W. Clarke, Ancient Christian Writers 46 (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1986), 258; Nichols, 158.32Quoted in Schatz, 20.

sense, Stephen argued that only the bishop of Rome held it and, for the first time by a Roman

bishop, justified his position with Matthew 16:16-19.33 Even then, however, the Roman Church’s

claims to a primacy over the universal church were not broadly recognized, even in the west let

alone the east. The closer a region was geographically to Rome, the more likely it was for the

inhabitants to accept papal dictates. Thus, within the Italia suburbica the Roman Church

developed a jurisdiction akin to that of the churches of Alexandria and Antioch in the regions

near them. However, churches in more distant regions, such as Spain or Northern Africa,

continued to operate largely independent of Roman influence.34

By the early fourth century, thus, the Roman Church was recognized as having a

preeminence within the universal Church, although in a very particular non-juridical sense

outside of the western empire generally, and outside of Rome, in particular. A new series of

developments began in the fourth century under the emperorship of Constantine I, whose impact

on Christianity in general and the Roman Church’s role therein was massive. Following the Edict

of Milan that ended persecution against and legalized Christianity (313), the Christian

perspective toward the city of Rome and the Roman Empire shifted dramatically. However, it has

been argued that an important reason for the Roman Church’s preeminence from its beginning

was its presence at the imperial capital and residence of the emperor.35 It is true that, beginning

with the Apostles, the organization of churches centered around major cities in the Empire; Paul,

for example, sent letters to the capitals of imperial provinces, including Rome, capital of Italy,

Ephesus capital of Asia, Corinth, capital of Achaea, and Thessalonica, capital of Macedonia.

11

33Nichols, 157-158; Miller, 81-82.34Schatz 32-33.35A classic working of this position is argued by Dvornik: Francis Dvornik, “The Principle of Accommodation” and “The Principle of Apostolicity,” in Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, 27-58 (New York: Fordham University Press, 1966), 27-39.

Since these capitals were socially, politically, and economically more important than other

regions of the provinces, it was a natural consequence that the churches and bishops of the

capitals gained a superiority over the other churches of the provinces, as well. This “principle of

accommodation,” it has been argued, was a major cause of the Roman Church’s preeminence

from its beginning.36

However, there are good reasons to minimize the significance of imperial ranking in the

case of the Roman Church. Numerous references from works within the New Testament canon

and other early Christian literature refer to the city of Rome negatively. For instance, the

canonical Apocalypse, especially, but also 1 Peter (5:13), refer to Rome as “Babylon,” thought of

as “the great harlot, murderer of the faithful and a thing of loathing and disgust.”37 For instance,

Tertullian (fl. c. 160 - 220), while supporting the stability of the Roman Empire so as to avoid the

rise of the Antichrist, also referred to Rome’s “deserved doom” as “the city of fornication.”38

Others, such as Commodian (fl. c. 250) and Victorinus of Pettau (d. c. 304), separately referred

to Rome in decisively negative terms, indicative of a trend among many Christian authors during

times of increased persecution by the state.39 In addition to this evidence for a negative

perception of the city of Rome and the Roman Empire, there is also no evidence from the first

12

36Dvornik, 29-31.37Adrian Hastings, “The Papacy and Rome’s Civil Greatness,” The Downside Review 75 (1957): 362.38Cf. Tertullian, De Resurrectione Carnis XXV. Quoted in Gregory Charles Jenks, The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth (New York: De Gruyter, 1991), 103.39Jenks, 97-112. Jenks notes that, despite the tendency toward negative perceptions of the Roman Empire, extant Christian writings from the third century do not depict it as the kingdom of the Antichrist, nor the emperor as Antichrist: Jenks, 112.

three centuries to indicate that the praises of the Roman Church and references to its

preeminence were based on its being located in the imperial capital.40

After Constantine began to support the Church, Christian attitudes toward Rome and the

Roman Empire widely became more positive, which is unsurprising given its extent. Not only

did he legalize Christianity and end persecution of Christians, Constantine also provided

extensive funding, built and donated buildings, such as the Lateran Cathedral and many other

richly adorned churches, and gave gifts and privileges to the clergy.41 These positive

developments, and the increased liking toward imperial Rome that resulted, will have led to an

increase in the Roman Church’s preeminence by association.42 That is, the “principle of

accommodation” became an important factor for the Roman Church’s prominence, along with

the “principle of apostolicity,” only following the Christianization of the Roman Empire under

Constantine.

Constantine’s decision to move the imperial capital to the recently established

Constantinople, which he consecrated on May 11, 330,43 both benefitted and inhibited the

Roman Church’s preeminence and influence. It allowed further development by virtue of an

absence of leadership in the west, which both enabled and necessitated the Bishop of Rome to

fill it. In this way, the Roman Church’s increasing political influence resulted in greater ecclesial

13

40Hastings, “The Papacy and Rome’s Civil Greatness,” 366. Twoney finds Hastings’ argument that the Roman Church’s influence was not originally based on its association with imperial Rome convincing: Vincent Twomey, Apostolikos Thronos: The Primacy of Rome as Reflected in the Church History of Eusebius and the Historico-Apologetic Writings of St. Athanasius the Great (Münster: Aschendorff, 1982), 3. Jalland argues that during the second and third centuries, “Surely, it would be much nearer the truth to say that it [i.e., the Roman Church] was honoured not because of but in spite of its imperial associations”: T. G. Jalland, The Church and the Papacy: An Historical Study (London: S.P.C.K., 1946), 106.41Eno, 47; cf. Richard Krautheimer, Three Christian Capitals: Topography and Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 7-40.42While Hastings does not make this point, it is a natural consequence of his argument. 43Krautheimer, 43. Only essential buildings were likely completed by 334, such as city walls, an aqueduct, streets, a palace, and administration buildings: Krautheimer, 43, 45.

control, and vice versa,44 which eventually resulted in the “monarchical papacy” during the

Middle Ages.45 However, Roman preeminence and influence was also diminished in the east,

where the Church of Constantinople, especially, but also other eastern churches gained

prominence due to the principle of accommodation: they became more important imperially and,

therefore, also ecclesiastically. Also, Constantine and his successors reigned as Christian

emperors who took-on the role of “...bishop for external affairs,” that is, the Church’s temporal

protector, which resulted in conflicts over jurisdiction with bishops, including the Bishop of

Rome.46

The Council of Nicaea (325), called by Constantine, decreed Canon six, which is

important for understanding its contemporary jurisdiction. Specifically, this canon reaffirmed the

“ancient custom” that the bishop of Alexandria would hold authority over Egypt, Libya and

Pentapolis, “since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome,”47 specifically,

likely over the provinces of central Italy.48 Antioch is also named as a principal church, and its

prerogatives, as well as those of churches from other provinces, are to be observed.49 However,

while Rome’s jurisdiction is implied to be equal to that of other churches, it is significant that the

canon does not canonize Rome’s jurisdiction, which was beyond dispute, but recognized it as a

standing precedent by which Alexandria’s jurisdiction was declared.50

14

44Miller, 93-94; Schatz, 21-22.45Miller, 93.46Hugo Rahner, Church and State in Early Christianity, translated by Leo Donald Davis (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992), 45; Miller, 93; Schatz, 21; Quotation from Eusebius of Caesarea, Vita Constantini 4.24, quoted in Rahner, 45.47Norman P. Tanner, ed. and trans. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1 (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 8-9.48Brian E. Daley, “Position and Patronage in the Early Church: The Original Meaning of ‘Primacy of Honour,’” Journal of Theological Studies 44: 535.49Tanner, 9.50Ray, 195, fn. 100.

The Council of Sardica (c. 343),51 which was called by emperors Constans and

Constantius to settle the controversy of Athanasius of Alexandria’s orthodoxy, decreed three

canons that were very important for Roman primacy. Canon three declared that, on the basis of

the principle of apostolicity -- specifically, in honour of the Apostle Peter --, a bishop who

believed he had a good case after a local or regional council ruled against him in a dispute with

another church could appeal to the Bishop of Rome.52 To this end, those who had made the

synodal judgments were to write to the Bishop of Rome who was granted the office and authority

of determining whether any such synodal decisions could be re-adjudicated by another synod in a

province neighbouring the disputants and to which he could send representatives to arbitrate.53

Similarly, Canon four was also important for Roman primacy. It decreed that, should a

bishop be deposed by regional bishops, the former could appeal the decision to the bishop of

Rome, and that the deposed could not be replaced in his See unless and until such time as the

deposition was upheld.54 Canon five, finally, was also similar in nature to canons three and four.

It decreed that individual bishops could appeal synodal decisions against themselves to the

Bishop of Rome who, if he deemed it appropriate, could send priests to judge the case with his

authority, alongside other bishops.55 This canon, thus, along with canons three and four, allude to

a tremendous trust many eastern and western bishops had in the episcopacy of the Roman

15

51For a detailed analysis of the Council of Sardica, its canons and its connection with canon law, cf. Hamilton Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica (New York: Oxford UP, 2005).52The canon specifies appeal to the contemporary bishop of Rome, Julius, however, it is accepted by many scholars that the council did not intend to limit the canon to Julius’ lifetime: e.g., Ray, 197, fn. 103; Eno, 50-51; Miller, 77; Hess, 192-193.53Jurgens, 308.54Jurgens, 308.55Jurgens, 308.

Church, the latter of which is essentially granted carte blanche in his decision-making in the

particular situations described.56

The Council of Constantinople (381) was called by Emperor Theodosius in order to

address the remnants of Arianism. While attended exclusively by eastern bishops, it indirectly

recognized the preeminence of Rome on the basis of the principle of accommodation in its third

canon, which stated: “Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the

privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.”57 This is the first instance whereby an

ecumenical council directly stated that the Roman Church held a primacy of honour among the

churches. Moreover, it is important to note that Rome was recognized as having such, not

because of its apostolicity, but because it was the former imperial capital whose ecclesiastical

honour and privileges mirrored those it held temporally (i.e., principle of accommodation).58

It has been accepted by some modern scholars59 that “primacy of honour” was

understood in the early Church as strictly “a position of moral leadership: a sign of traditionally

recognized auctoritas or prestige, as distinguished from effective decision making or judicial

power within the structures of the Church,” that is, jurisdiction.60 However, this is anachronistic.

Both Greek and Roman understandings of honour (i.e., timhv, honos) were associated with

publicly recognized civil offices of authority (i.e., political office). In the context of the early

16

56Phrases that allude to this carte blanche, include, “it is in the power of the bishop [of Rome] to do whatever seems right to him,” and “he [i.e., the Bishop of Rome] will do whatever seems best to him in his most prudent counsel: Quoted in Jurgens, 308.57Tanner, 32.58Tanner, 100.59For instance, Thomas Owen Martin, “The Twenty-Eighth Canon of Chalcedon: A Background Note,” in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, Vol. 2, edited by Aloys Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht, 433-458 (Wurzburg, Germany: Echter-Verlag, 1953), 457; Emilianos of Meloa, “The Nature and Character of Ecumenical Councils According to the Orthodox Church,” in The Councils of the Church: History and Analysis, edited by Hans Jochen Margull and translated by Walter F. Bense, 338-369 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 354.60Daley, 530.

Church, too, normatively having honour had the practical consequence of having authority.61 In

this context, Canon three of the Council of Constantinople could be translated, using ancient

understandings of honour and authority, as: “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the

prerogatives of office (ta; presbei:a th:V timh:V) after the Bishop of Rome, because it [i.e.,

Constantinople] is a new Rome.”62 This interpretation, that is, that juridical authority was granted

to the Bishop of Constantinople by Canon three is further substantiated by Canon 28 of the

Council of Chalcedon.63 This canon contained a description of Canon three of the Council of

Constantinople, which was stated to have “apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of

new Rome [i.e., Constantinople]” as those held by the Roman Church.64 Important to note is that,

while the word timhv was used in Canon three, it is here absent; and not considered by the council

to have altered the original meaning. Thus, the use of ta; presbei:a th:V timh: in Canon three was

understood to mean more than the Constantinopolitan Church simply was granted prestige, but

also judicial authority.

17

61On the broader cultural and societal understanding of “primacy,” cf. Daley, 530-532. On its context in the Church, cf. Daley, esp. 534, 541-542. G. R. Evans also agrees with Daley that “primacy of honour” involved rank and authority: G. R. Evans, The Church and the Churches: Toward an Ecumenical Ecclesiology (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994), 92. Tillard agrees with Daley’s position that “primacy” (presbeia in Greek; primatus in Latin) literally means “prerogatives” or “privileges”: Cited in Christopher Ruddy, The Local Church: Tillard and the Future of Catholic Ecclesiology (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2006), 219; cf. J. M. R. Tillard, L'Eglise locale: Ecclesiologie de communion et catholicité (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1995), 436ff.62Daley, 534. Against this view includes Dvornik, who argues that Canon three “did not give Byzantium anything but a precedence in honor, without expressly increasing the extent of its jurisdiction”: Dvornik, 47.63Canon 28 will be explained and analyzed in greater detail below.64For the full text of Canon 28, cf. Tanner, 99-100.

II.A. IMMEDIATE BACKGROUND TO THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

In order to more fully comprehend the Council of Chalcedon, the circumstances and

causes of its summoning must be understood, beginning with the Home Synod of Constantinople

in November of 448. This synod, as well as the subsequent Council of Ephesus II and Chalcedon

were all a continuance of the christological crisis dealt with at the Council of Ephesus (431),65

specifically regarding the relationship between and unity of Christ’s natures.66

The Home Synod of Constantinople was called to deal with particular local matters, and

was presided over by Bishop Flavian of Constantinople. Present at this synod was Eusebius,

Bishop of Dorylaeum, who laid the charge of heresy against Eutyches, a prominent

archimandrite of a monastery outside of Constantinople, who was influential in the eastern

imperial court of Theodosius II. Eutyches held an extreme interpretation of Cyrillian miaphysite

christology, which likely included the position that after the Incarnation Christ’s divinity

overtook his humanity in such a way that, “despite being a perfect man, the body of Christ was

of a different essence from ours.”67 This view of Eutyches’ was well known throughout the

18

65W. H. C. Frend, “Leo and Chalcedon 440-61,” in The Early Church, 237-246 (Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971), 238.66Hubertus Drobner, “Theological Controversies of the Fifth Century: III. Leo the Great,” in The Fathers of the Church” A Comprehensive Introduction, translated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann, 478-489 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 486.67Quotation from István Pásztori-Kupán, The Early Church Fathers: Theodoret of Cyrus (New York: Routledge, 2006), 19. That Eutyches held this radical monophysitism, also cf. Justo L. Gonzalez, “The Nestorian Controversy and the Council of Ephesus” and “The Council of Chalcedon,” in A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. 1, 353-380 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1993), 371; Philip Jenkins, “Chalcedon,” in Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years, 199-226 (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010), 174; David N. Bell, “The Council of Chalcedon,” in A Cloud of Witnesses: An Introduction to the Development of Christian Doctrine to AD 500 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2007), 130; Joseph Lebon, Le monophysisme sévérien: Étude historique, litteraire et théologique sur la résistance monophysite au concile de Chalcédoine jusqu'à la constitution de l'église jacobite (Louvain: 1909), xxii-xxv: cited in Jan-Eric Steppa, John Rufus and the World Vision of Anti-Chalcedonian Culture (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2002), xix-xx. That Eutyches was at least understood to have held this position by his contemporaries, cf. Wessel, 259.

east,68 and it was for this position that Eusebius accused him of heresy and for which he wanted

him summoned before an official trial to respond to his accusations. While a dyophysite, himself,

Flavian was wary of pursuing a charge of heresy against such an influential figure as Eutyches,

and preferred a reconciliatory approach by which Eutyches would be forgiven if he recanted.

Finally, Eusebius’ request was carried out, and a summons was issued to Eutyches. He rejected it

and one other before he accepted a third and agreed to appear. Fourteen days after he received

the first summons, Eutyches arrived accompanied by the silentiary Magnus, a number of

soldiers, and hundreds of monks. Also, Florentius, a patrician and former prefect was appointed

by Theodosius II to observe the proceedings of that session. His presence, as well as that of

Magnus, is indicative that the emperor did not trust Flavian or the other conciliar members to

maintain order and defend orthodoxy as he understood it, that is, in defense of Eutyches and his

monophysitism.69

Eutyches was asked by the council to explain his beliefs, but refused to elucidate beyond

saying that he believed the content of the Nicene creed, Ephesus I, and the works of Cyril of

Alexandria. When Flavian asked him if he believed particular theological points, Eutyches was

willing to agree to all required of him, but refused to condemn the contrary positions, which he

argued were held by Alexandrian Fathers. Since he refused to explicitly acknowledge belief in

19

68Price and Gaddis 1:25.69Price and Gaddis 1:25-27.

Christ’s two natures after the Incarnation by condemning such positions, and since he dismissed

episcopal authority on this matter, Eutyches was condemned by the council.70

Immediately after his condemnation, but before the synod had closed, Eutyches verbally

issued an appeal to the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica. He,

thereafter, also sent letters to these bishops in which he sought an appeal of his condemnation at

an ecumenical council.71 With his letter to Leo seeking assistance, Eutyches also sent a copy of

the charges made against him by Eusebius, his libellus fidei, and passages from the Fathers in

support of his position.72 Additionally, Leo received correspondence from Flavian regarding the

trial of Eutyches. It was, however, inexplicably delayed and, thus, before he had received it Leo

sent Flavian a rebuke that he had not been fully informed of the synodal outcome, but should

have been.73 That Leo thought that he had a right to such information promptly was a reflection

of his understanding of the role and authority he wielded as bishop of Rome. Flavian’s letter,

however, also reflected his own understanding of such. Whereas Eutyches had asked for Leo’s

“authentic decision” on the matter of his orthodoxy, Flavian did not; he simply wrote to inform

Leo of the situation.74

20

70Price and Gaddis 1:27-28; Frend, 240. Gonzalez argues that Eutyches was condemned at the Home Synod of Constantinople due to the influence of Dioscorus who instructed the imperial legate to ensure that such happened. Dioscorus wanted this so that, thereafter, he could become Eutyches’ advocate, have him reinstated, and “deal a fatal blow to his opponents”: Gonzalez, 371. In partial contrast, Hughes argues that the imperial legate at the Home Synod tried to convince Eutyches to acknowledge dyophysitism as orthodox: Philip Hughes, “The General Council of Chalcedon, 451,” in The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870, 75-102 (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1964), 81.71Price and Gaddis 1:28.72Aloys Grillmeier, “From Ephesus to Chalcedon,” and “The Council of Chalcedon,” in Christ in Christian Tradition. Volume One: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), translated by John Bowden, 488-557 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), 527.73Price and Gaddis 1:29. Specifically, Leo wrote to Flavian: “Would you then, beloved brother, hasten to tell us the whole story as fully and as lucidly as possible, as you ought to have done already ... to say what this new thing is that contradicts the old belief, and which you have seen fit to punish with so severe a sentence": Quoted in Hughes, 81.74Grillmeier, 527.

In response to these letters, Leo wrote his famous Tome to Flavian. In so doing, Leo, as a

Latin-speaker, was the first Roman bishop to become involved in Eastern theological disputes,

the terminology of which was only Greek.75 Specifically due to the report from Flavian, Leo

concluded that Eutychian monophysitism was a form of Docetism in the belief that Christ’s body

was of a different substance than that of humans.76

On March 30, 449, in response to Eutyches’ request, Theodosius ordered an ecumenical

council to convene in August of 449 at Ephesus at which the former’s condemnation was to be

re-assessed.77 The emperor’s motivation for summoning this council (i.e., Ephesus II) was

complicated. In part, it was due to Eutyches’ accusations that Flavian had falsified records used

against him at the Home Synod, and that the latter’s notary had failed to record Eutyches’ appeal

at the end of that council to the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica.

These accusations were investigated that April at a synod in Constantinople, which decided that

sufficient evidence of Eutyches’ claims warranted the new council.78 Theodosius, moreover, was

also motivated by an aspiration to bring an end to the controversy surrounding Christ’s natures

that he thought had been settled by Ephesus I when Nestorius and Nestorianism had been

condemned. Bishops, such as Flavian, were accused by Eutyches, Dioscorus and Chrysaphius,

among others, of being Nestorian for accepting dyophysitism, and Theodosius, influenced in part

by Chrysaphius, accepted this charge. The emperor wanted the orthodoxy established at Ephesus

21

75Frend, 240.76For a detailed analysis of Leo’s Tome, cf. the section, “III.B.i. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: Apostolicity.” In later letters and sermons, Leo also compared Eutychian monophysitism to Apollinarianism, which contended that the Word’s dignity replaced the human soul and mind, and which held that Christ had only one nature. Essentially, Leo accused Eutyches of holding to “an intrinsic unity of Logos and flesh” after the Incarnation, which resulted in only Christ’s divine nature existing within him: Wessel, 215-216. Eutyches, however, dismissed the charge that he was guilty of adhering to Apollinarianism, and anathematized Apollinarius in a letter to Pope Leo: Ep. 21.3 from December 448, cited in Wessel 216 fn. 36.77Price and Gaddis 1:28, especially fn. 100.78Wessel, 259-260.

I to be reaffirmed and,79 thus, supported Eutyches and his christology in opposition to

“Nestorian” dyophysitism, and ensured that Ephesus II brought about such a conclusion.80

On August 8, 449, the first session of Ephesus II commenced with 135 bishops in

attendance.81 The presidency of the council had been granted to Dioscorus only two days prior,

and with it the authority to silence anyone who attempted to add or take away from the Faith of

the councils of Nicaea and Ephesus I.82 Prior to Ephesus II, however, Dioscorus had conspired

with bishops Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, and others to establish an agenda and

ensure its outcome.83 This was assisted by the reading of imperial letters, which opened the

council and demonstrated that Theodosius II wanted Eutyches rehabilitated.84 Perhaps in part for

this reason, but also due to miaphysite tendencies among many bishops, the majority present

supported Eutyches and his christology, and Dioscorus. To suppress those who did not, however,

Dioscorus brought “his army of monks and parabolani,” along with other monks from the Syrian

desert who were virulent opponents of the Antiochene and dyophysite christology of Theodoret

of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa.85

22

79Wessel, 268-269.80De Vries, “The Reasons,” 4; F. X. Murphy, Peter Speaks Through Leo (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1952), 20.81Price and Gaddis 1:32.82Gonzalez, 375. The decree that Dioscorus could silence such people was based on “the Ephesian canon,” which prohibited anyone to “propose, write, or compose a different faith” from that established at Nicaea: Gonzalez, 375, fn.11. Murphy argues that, while Dioscorus presided, two imperial officials effectively ran Ephesus II. It was they who opened the council by reading imperial documents, and they ensured that the proceedings occurred as they had been planned by Theodosius and his advisers: Murphy, 20.83Price and Gaddis 1:31. The Council of Chalcedon later concluded that, in addition to these three, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Isaurian Seleucia were also chief concoctors of Ephesus II: cf. Price and Gaddis 1:364, 1.1068.84Frend, 242.85Frend, 241. Other factors contributed to the pro-Eutychian outcome. Specifically, the Roman representatives were “weakened” by the death of a legate en route; the Bishop of Puteoli was only supported by two Roman clerics; Flavian was not accompanied by very many suffragan bishops (Frend, 241); and those who had condemned Eutyches at the Home Synod were not allowed to vote regarding his orthodoxy at Ephesus II, by Theodosius’ decree: Hughes, 83.

! The Roman legates at the council, specifically, Julius and the deacon Hilary, attempted on

numerous occasions to have Leo’s letter to the council and his Tome formally read at the first

session. Dioscorus, however, knowing its dyophysite contents, refused to allow such. Instead he

proceeded with the agenda, and addressed Eutyches’ appeal. He had the minutes from the Home

Synod of 448 read, as well as those of the synod of April 449 that had found merit in Eutyches’

accusations against Flavian, and Canon seven of Ephesus I. The dyophysitism of Flavian and

Eusebius of Dorylaeum, which was evident from the Home Synod’s minutes, brought about

accusations of Nestorianism at the council. Thereafter, Dioscorus sought and received a

reaffirmation from the conciliar bishops of Ephesus I’s Canon seven, which prohibited anyone to

“propose, write, or compose a different faith” from that proclaimed at Nicaea.86 Flavian and

Eusebius were accused of breaching this canon by their advocation of dyophysitism and,

subsequently, were declared deposed by Dioscorus, which resulted in reprisals from Flavian and

Eusebius’ supporters. Flavian made a verbal appeal, and the deacon Hilary protested with the

word contradicitur. In response, Dioscorus declared that his life was threatened, imperial

officials opened the doors, and soldiers, monks that came with Dioscorus, and others “allegedly”

entered and threatened the bishops present to sign the depositions.87 While violence surely

occurred, testimonies regarding it at the Council of Chalcedon were exaggerated by bishops in

their efforts to escape blame for having willingly agreed to the depositions.88

23

86Price and Gaddis 1: 32-33; Quotation from Gonzalez, 378.87Price and Gaddis 1:33; Hughes, 83.88Price and Gaddis 1:32. For an analysis skeptical that bishops at Ephesus II were forced to sign these depositions, cf. V. C. Samuel, “Proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon and its Historical Problems,” The Ecumenical Review 22.4 (1970): 321-347, esp. 327-330.

The Roman legates escaped the session, and Flavian was taken prisoner and died en route

to his exile.89 The second and final session of Ephesus II, however, reconvened on August 22

with 112 bishops with the agenda of deposing other “Nestorian” bishops, that is, anyone who

accepted Antiochene dyophysite christology, moderate or radical. To this end, complaints were

heard from Syrian clergy and monks against bishops on various grounds, administrative,

disciplinary, and doctrinal, including accusations of Nestorianism. Among those accused and

deposed were Ibas of Edessa, Daniel of Carrhae (Harran), Irenaeus of Tyre, Aquilinus of Byblus,

Theodret of Cyrus, and Domnus of Antioch. The case of Sophronius of Constantia (Tella) was

undecided and left to the judgment of the new metropolitan of Edessa; Nonnus was soon after

appointed to replace Ibas. Thereafter, the council concluded and sent its judgments to Theodosius

who accepted them all. He then told Dioscorus to have all bishops sign a cyclical letter declaring

their agreement with the councils of Ephesus I and II, and condemnations of “Nestorians.”90

24

89Hughes argues that Flavian died three days after his trial: Hughes, 83. Wessel agrees with Hughes that Flavian had died by August 11, 451 at which time Leo wrote a second time to him without a reply: Wessel, 280, fn. 87. Drobner argues that Flavian died on his way into exile in either 449 or 450: Drobner, 481. Chadwick argues that Flavian did not die until February 450 and, therefore, that Anatolius was appointed while his predecessor was still alive. Since Leo would not have accepted Anatolius’ appointment while Flavian was still alive and unjustly deposed, Chadwick argues that Anatolius may have been involved in Flavian’s death: H. Chadwick, “The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: a Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon,” JTS 6 (1955):17-34.90cf. Price and Gaddis 1:33-37. The minutes of the second session of Ephesus II are extant only from a sixth-century Syriac translation of the original Greek text: Price and Gaddis 1:33.

II.B. LEO’S ECCLESIOLOGY: ROMAN PRIMACY AND THE BISHOP OF ROME

IN THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH

As noted above, prior to Leo’s episcopacy, in fact from the first century onward, the

Roman Church was recognized as holding a spiritual and moral authority within the universal

Church stemming from its Petrine and Pauline background, and reputation in charity and

orthodoxy. From the legalization of Christianity under Constantine onward, the Roman Church

also gained authority by virtue of being within the imperial capital. Finally, at least by the

Council of Constantinople (381), this episcopal see was understood to wield juridical authority

within the universal Church.91 Also prior to Leo, some bishops of the Roman Church had made

claims to authority as stemming from the Apostle Peter. As noted above, Stephen (r. 254-257)

was the first bishop of Rome to develop a theory of the Roman bishop’s primacy beyond all

other bishops by applying Cyprian’s concept of cathedra Petri solely to his office, and through

exegesis of Matthew 16:16-19.92

Thus, prior to Leo’s reign, the Roman Church held a form of primacy in the universal

Church, and some popes had attempted to assert their authority on a juridical basis.93 Leo did the

same, and usually made his most candid claims to being “the divinely commissioned ruler of the

church” biannually: in his homilies on the anniversary of his elevation to the episcopacy of

Rome (September 29), and on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul (June 29).94 For instance, in a

25

91Cf. the section, “Pre-Chalcedon: The Primacy and Influence of the Bishop of Rome.” Canon three of the Council of Constantinople used the expression “primacy of honour” to refer to the juridical authority of the churches of Rome and Constantinople. The latter held the “primacy of honour” after the former: Cf. Daley, esp. 534, 541-542.92Nichols, 157-158; Miller, 81-82.93Walter Ullmann, “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy,” Journal of Theological Studies 11.1 (April 1960): 33.94Bronwen Neil, Leo the Great, The Early Church Fathers, edited by Carol Harrison (New York: Routledge, 2009), 40-41, 113. Leo usually delivered homilies on this topic on these two occasions, but not always. For instance, he did not deliver one on his episcopal anniversary in 442: Neil, 41.

homily commemorating the fourth anniversary of his elevation to the bishopric of Rome,95 Leo

connected the authority of Peter, of which he spoke very highly, with his own office. He first

spoke of how Christ was uninhibited in his work to redeem humanity but, yet, how:

...from the whole world, Peter alone is chosen, who is put in charge of the calling of all peoples, and of all the apostles, and all the Fathers of the church. And so, although there are many priests among the people of God and many shepherds, yet Peter properly reigns over all whom Christ also rules first of all.96

According to Leo, thus, Peter shared in the divine power of God in a way different from all

others.97 The reason for this authority being granted to Peter in particular was two-fold: he was

the first to correctly proclaim the confession of faith, revealed by God the Father, that Jesus is

“...Christ the Son of the living God” (cf. Matt 16:16-17); and God had forgiven Peter following

his three-fold denial of Jesus and subsequent repentance.98 Moreover, as the successor of the

Apostle Peter in the Church of Rome, those works and prescriptions that Leo or his predecessors

“perform[ed] rightly and ... properly” were due to the “works (and) ... governing” of Peter,

himself.99 In this way, each Roman bishop did not inherit his authority from his immediate

predecessor, but directly from the Apostle.100

Prior to Leo, bishops of Rome had not been particularly successful in justifying their

claims to primacy as stemming from Peter. It was Leo who first “erect[ed] a fully-fledged and

satisfying doctrine culminating in the juristic succession of the pope to St. Peter.”101 Specifically,

he utilized concepts from Roman law to establish that the Roman bishop was the indignus haeres

of the Apostle. Within the inheritance laws of this juristic system, an heir inherited all of the

26

95Delivered on September 29, 444.96Leo, “Homily 4.2” in Neil, 128-129.97Leo, “Homily 4.2” in Neil, 129.98Neil, 126; cf. Leo, “Homily 4.2-4” in Neil, 129-130.99Leo, “Homily 4.4” in Neil, 130.100Ullmann, “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy,” 28, fn. 1.101Ullmann, “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy,” 33.

deceased’s privileges, possessions and liabilities so that the two persons were legally the same.

With the bishop of Rome as the heir of Peter, he thus inherited all of the latter’s aforementioned

privileges and duties to reign over and govern all within the universal church.102 When a Roman

bishop did so by issuing a decree from his episcopal office, for example, he exercised a “Petrine

function,” that is, his judgment came from the authority he inherited from Peter, as opposed to

being derived from himself, as an individual.103 In this way, the bishop of Rome, according to

Leo, was the “legal...embodiment” of Peter.104 The connection between the former and the latter,

however, was even more concrete. Leo taught that Peter continued to act in a special way in the

Roman bishops:

“He [Peter] continues to carry out with full effect the work which has been entrusted to him; he discharges every duty, every task of his office... So whatever I [Leo] may achieve, whatever effective steps I may take...is done through his work and his merits; his power is still living in his see and his authority is supreme.”105

In this way, Leo taught that Peter actually worked and spoke through his successors in the

Roman episcopacy who were his “...sacramental embodiment...”106

It was, thus, with confidence in this understanding of his authority that Leo wrote to many

bishops, including those outside of the Italian peninsula, instructing and reproving. For instance,

Leo entered into a dispute with Hilary, bishop of Arles,107 whose church was generally

understood to be preeminent in Gaul. In part for this reason, Hilary had been involved in the

27

102Ullmann, “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy,” 33-34. Leo discusses the bishop of Rome’s role as the indignus haeres of Peter, for instance, in Sermon 3.4: Leo, “Sermon III.IV,” in “The Letters and Sermons of Leo the Great,” in Leo the Great. Gregory the Great Pt. 1: Select Works and Letters, 1-205, translated by Charles Lett Feltoe, Vol. 12, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, edited by Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace (Oxford: James Parker and Company, 1895), 117.103Ullmann, “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy,” 35-36; Cf. Leo, “Sermon III.III-IV” in Schaff and Wace, 117-118.104Miller, 85.105Leo, Sermon 3.3; Quoted in Miller, 85.106Miller, 85.107For an extensive explanation and analysis of this dispute and the surrounding circumstances, cf. Wessel, 53-96.

appointment and deposition of bishops throughout Gaul. Although many did not recognize the

Roman Church’s authority in Gaul as ultimate, Leo became involved following two different

depositions, that of Bishop Celidonius of Besançon, and Bishop Projectus of Narbonne, both of

whom appealed their cases to Leo who decided that Hilary had overstepped his authority. Not

only had he violated canons in both cases, but the bishops he deposed were outside his

jurisdiction as metropolitan. In this regard, on c. July 1, 445,108 Leo wrote to the bishops of the

province of Vienne to inform them, among other things, that he had reproved Hilary and

rescinded his communion with the Roman Church for acting outside his jurisdiction, and for

having escaped from Rome to which he came to explain his actions. Also, Leo reduced Hilary’s

authority to his bishopric at Arles, and revoked his privileges as a bishop to ordain and even be

present at ordinations, as well as to summon councils.109 In June or July 445, conflicts with Leo

and bishops of Gaul were imperially considered when Valentinian III decreed that the Gallic

bishops had to submit to the bishop of Rome.110

This dispute with Hilary was an exception, however, to Leo’s usual emphasis on

collegiality among bishops.111 He argued that all bishops had the same dignity, the same potestas

ordinis.112 However, Peter and his successors in the Roman Church shared in the divine power of

God in a way different from all others, and it was only through him that the other apostles,

bishops and ecclesial leaders obtained divine authority.113 Thus, Leo defended a vertical scheme

of episcopal authority, contrary to the “horizontal theory of Cyprian [of Carthage].”114

28

108Neil, 45-46; Wessel, 71-72.109Leo, “Letter X.7” in Schaff and Wace, 11.110Neil, 46.111Neil, 40.112Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power (London: Methuen, 1965), 7-8.113Leo, “Homily 4.2” in Neil, 129.114Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government, 7.

III.A. THE SUMMONING OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON:

INFLUENCES OF LEO AND IMPERIAL OFFICIALS

One of the first major instances when Leo’s influence can be discerned with regard to the

Council of Chalcedon pertained to its being summoned. After Ephesus II had concluded, Leo had

been informed, to his dismay, of the results, and refused to recognize it as valid, having called it

a latrocinium. As a result, he wrote to Theodosius II and asked for a new council to be called in

order to overturn the doctrinal and disciplinary decisions of Ephesus II. The emperor, however,

refused to do so,115 and it was not until after he died that Leo’s request for a council was granted.

Theodosius did not have a male heir, and after he died it was his sister, Aelia Pulcheria

Augusta (i.e., Pulcheria),116 who asserted control. She was a well educated, very intelligent and

astute woman in political and religious matters, and a very pious Christian. During her youth, in

fact, she took personal responsibility for the religious upbringing of her younger brother,

Theodosius, and her sisters. To this end, she had them come together to chant antiphons and

recite Bible passages at the canonical hours of each day and night, and encouraged fasting on

Wednesdays and Fridays. She, herself, became a consecrated virgin, which she directed her

sisters to be, as well.117 She considered herself to be Christ’s bride, and had a strong devotion to

the Virgin Mary whose representative she considered herself.118

29

115Theodosius supported Eutyches, whose “conservative Cyrillian position” had been re-established as “orthodox” at Ephesus II, recognized that his monophysitism had wide support in the Eastern Empire, and likely wanted to avoid further ecclesiastical changes at a time when the empire was expecting attacks from Attila the Hun. For these reasons, he did not want Ephesus II overturned: Bevan, “The Case of Nestorius,” 412.116Theodosius declared Pulcheria to be Augusta on July 14, 414: Holum, 97.117Holum, 91, 93.118Wessel, 12.

Pulcheria also organized Theodosius’ religious training, including the study of biblical

and patristic works in place of traditional non-Christian authors. To ensure he would act as a

dignified ruler, Pulcheria taught him how to sit, walk and dress in public, how to display

emotions appropriately, and to at least appear knowledgeable regarding matters of the Empire.119

Pulcheria, thus, had a strong personality and demonstrated her piety, as well as her capacity and

willingness to direct imperial affairs. In fact, she was Theodosius’ de facto regent during his

youth, and was a significant cause of his religiosity.120

Despite Pulcheria’s influence in his upbringing and training, especially in religious

matters, Theodosius enjoyed his independence, and demonstrated his willingness to make his

own decisions, even when they were contrary to those of Pulcheria.121 The latter, thus, held an

active role in imperial affairs until c.440, at which time she was replaced in her capacity as a

chief adviser to Theodosius by the eunuch Chrysaphius and cast out of the imperial court, most

likely due to her opposition to the latter and Dioscorus, archbishop of Alexandria, both of whom

were theologians of the Alexandrian school.122 Chrysaphius was a disciple of the highly

influential archimandrite, Eutyches, the latter of whom, thus, unsurprisingly received imperial

support for himself and his monophysitism.123

30

119Holum, 92-93.120Wessel, 12.121When Pulcheria was replaced by Chrysaphius in the capacity of Theodosius’ theological adviser, the imperial christological position changed from a pro-dyophysite position -- which may have bordered on being pro-Nestorian -- to a pro-Eutychian position, which was founded in an extreme interpretation of Cyril of Alexandria’s works: Frend, 239.122Murphy, 9; Gonzalez, 376.123Hughes, 79. In addition to Eutyches’ connection with Chrysaphius, a reason for Theodosius’ support was his admiration of the former’s asceticism: Hughes, 79.

Upon the death of Theodosius on July 28, 450 following a horse-riding accident,124

Pulcheria assumed power, and “took as her consort and co-regent a vigorous and capable officer,

the Thracian Marcian,”125 who had previously served as a tribune and domesticus.126 Since she

was a pious and consecrated virgin, this marriage was almost certainly strictly nominal, and

likely negotiated by “the powerful Alan and magister militum, Aspar,”127 who was probably

present at Theodosius’ death and had been Marcian’s military superior.128 Since Pulcheria was a

devout dyophysite, and Marcian most likely was also,129 it is probable that a condition of their

marriage was that the latter would have Ephesus II overturned, along with its decrees in favour

Eutychian monophysitism.130

In this respect, moreover, Leo was influential. After Ephesus II had concluded, Leo wrote

to Pulcheria and Theodosius, and convinced the western imperial family to do the same, so as to

put pressure on Theodosius to summon another council to overturn Ephesus II, and to redress

particular consequences of it. Following Theodosius’ death, Leo’s many requests were met.

31

124While there are discrepancies among the primary sources as to the date on which Theodosius died, many scholars accept the date of July 28, 450. For e.g., cf. Burgess, 61-62; Fergus Millar, A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief Under Theodosius II (408-450) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 3; Bevan, “The Case of Nestorius,” 416.125Grillmeier, 529.126Bevan, “The Case of Nestorius,” 417.127Wessel, 13. This position is held also by Burgess, 61-68. Bevan holds this position but also argues that the Isaurian pagan, Zeno, was involved with Aspar to this end: “The Case of Nestorius, 415-421. However, it seems unlikely that Pulcheria would have been willing to marry Marcian if he was not a dyophysite. Her religious beliefs were very important to her, and she surely would have been wary that dyophysitism would not be defended if Marcian did not accept it as orthodox.128Burgess, 62-63.129The following argue that Marcian was a dyophysite: Wessel, 270; Peter L’Huillier, “The Council of Chalcedon,” in The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, 181-328 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), 195; Ramsay MacMullen, Voting about God in Early Church Councils (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2006), 85; Vladimir Soloviev, “St. Leo the Great on the Primacy,” “St. Leo the Great on Papal Authority,” “The Approval of Leo’s Ideas by the Greek Fathers,” and “The Council of Chalcedon,” in The Russian Church and the Papacy, edited by Ray Ryland and translated by Herbert Rees, 163-190 (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2001), 188. In contrast, Bevan contends that Marcian’s christological beliefs are unknown, and that there is no evidence to support the position that his religious beliefs affected his decision to call the Council of Chalcedon nor defend dyophysitism: Bevan, 420.130Bevan, 425; Burgess, 65, 67-68.

Specifically, his Tome became accepted as orthodox by many and part of Eastern imperial policy.

It was attentively translated into Greek, gained the acceptance of Anatolius and many other

clerics, and recognized as orthodox at a Constantinopolitan synod in 450.131 Also, Flavian’s

remains were returned to Constantinople where they were buried in the Basilica of Apostles in a

dignified manner; clerics deposed at Ephesus II were restored to their churches; and Marcian

agreed to summon a council, which met at Chalcedon in response to Ephesus II.132 That these

demands of Leo’s were met were due, in large part, to congruency between Leo’s positions and

those of Pulcheria in particular, but also that of Marcian, especially congruency in christology.133

Moreover, as explained in detail above, the Roman Church’s preeminence, and history in

mediation and hearing appeals throughout the universal Church gave it credibility, especially

when orthodox belief was debated; factors that likely contributed to the acceptance of Leo’s

Tome and demands, as well. In these various ecclesiastical matters prior to the proceedings of the

Council of Chalcedon, it was most likely Pulcheria whose decisions were being accepted; she

“effectively dictated Marcian’s ecclesiastical policy,” at this time, due to her tremendous

experience and role in ecclesial politics.134

32

131Grillmeier, 529.132Wessel, 271; cf. Letter of Marcian to Pope Leo from November 22, 450, Document 2 in Price and Gaddis 1:93; Letter of Pulcheria to Pope Leo from November 22, 450, Document 3 in Price and Gaddis 1:93-94; Letter of Pope Leo to Pulcheria from April 13, 451, Document 4 in Price and Gaddis 1:95.133Wessel, 279-281; Pulcheria wrote that, through Leo’s letter (his Tome?), she came to recognize that his “faith is pure and such as should be rendered together with sanctity to the holy temple.” She continued that Leo’s beliefs were the same as hers and those of Marcian: Letter of Pulcheria to Pope Leo from November 22, 450, Document 3 in Price and Gaddis 1:94; Leo thought that Pulcheria, and not Marcian, had been chiefly responsible for his demands being met after Theodosius’ death, as indicated by his letter to her being four times as long as his letter to Marcian. Leo recognized that Pulcheria had “political clout.” After five months, Leo also acknowledged Marcian’s role in this progress “for the peace of the church” in a letter sent to him: Wessel, 271; cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Pulcheria from April 13, 451, Document 4 in Price and Gaddis 1:95; cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from April 23, 451, Document 5 in Price and Gaddis 1:97.134Price and Gaddis 2:206-207. This conclusion is consistent with Pulcheria’s prominence in letters with Pope Leo (e.g., Documents 3, 4, and 11 in Price and Gaddis 1:93-94, 94-96, 105-107, respectively), and the Council’s letter to her regarding Dioscorus’ condemnation at the Council (cf. Session 3.103, Price and Gaddis 2:114-116): Price and Gaddis 2:206. Frend argues that Marcian and Pulcheria were “joint rulers”: Frend, 242.

Despite Pulcheria’s prominence prior to the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon,

Marcian also had motivations to accept and support Leo’s demands, as well as the influence, as

emperor, to bring them to fruition. Aside from congruency with his christology, Marcian had

political reasons for such. As noted above, overturning Ephesus II’s decrees and summoning

another council to canonize dyophysitism as orthodox was most probably a condition of his

nominal marriage to Pulcheria. While the latter would have been pleased with this arrangement,

Marcian’s imperial elevation brought potential for a significant problem; it was a significant

deviation from precedent tantamount to usurpation. Since the reign of Diocletian, it was a

consistent practice for a senior augustus to have the right to appoint a successor when his senior

augustus counterpart died. Thus, when Marcian was acclaimed emperor of the east on August 25,

450, Valentinian III as emperor of the west was denied this right, and a schism was formed

between the two parts of the empire until February of 452. In order to address this problem,

Marcian strove to appease Leo in ecclesiastical matters, in part so as to obtain Valentinian’s

recognition; he hoped that Leo would advocate on his behalf.135 While Theodosius referred to

Leo as “patriarch,” for instance, a title indicative that he considered Leo equal to the other

patriarchs,136 Marcian referred to him with greater tribute. In his first letter to Leo after becoming

emperor, Marcian designated him as, “your holiness, possessing primacy in the episcopate of the

divine faith.”137 While the understanding that the bishop of Rome held a primacy was generally

accepted, Marcian’s intentions in using such language are questionable given his circumstances,

and further comments. In the same letter, he sought Leo’s approval to summon a council, which

33

135Bevan, 416-417, 421.136Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government, 10.137Letter of Marcian to Pope Leo from September of 450, Document 1 in Price and Gaddis 1:92-93.

he declared would be under Leo’s authority (Sou: auqentou:ntoV);138 Pulcheria also used similar

wording in a letter to Leo.139 That Marcian and Pulcheria sought to please Leo is further

substantiated by their acquiescence to many of his demands: recognition of his Tome in the

eastern empire, the dignified burial of Flavian’s remains, restoration of clerics deposed at

Ephesus II, and the summoning of the Council of Chalcedon.

The above instances whereby Marcian and Pulcheria wrote that the council would be

under Leo’s authority are prima facie recognitions of papal authority beyond that generally

accepted in the east. In the latter, it was understood that the ecumenical council wielded authority

by virtue of consensus among a large body of bishops, which was more authoritative than

decrees by the bishop of Rome.140 For these reasons, and particular instances whereby papal

demands were not heeded,141 it seems most reasonable that these comments by Marcian in

particular, but also Pulcheria, were at least partly disingenuous and motivated by politics.

In addition to political motivations for appeasing Leo, Marcian and Pulcheria were also

motivated to protect the empire at a time when there was much turmoil, that is, during the 440s

up until the time of the Council of Chalcedon. During Leo’s papal reign, the Vandals were in

northern Africa, the Suevi in Spain, the Goths in southwestern Gaul, the Franks in northern Gaul,

the Alans and Burgundians in the western Alps, the Anglos, Sexons, and Jutes in Great Britain;

34

138Letter of Marcian to Pope Leo from September of 450, Document 1 in Price and Gaddis 1:92-93. The Greek is found in Fortescue, 62, fn. 35.139In her letter from November 22, 450, Pulcheria wrote to Leo: “Accordingly, may your reverence deign to indicate, in whatever way you may decide, that all the bishops of the entire east, Thrace and Illyricum, according to the pleasure also of our lord the most pious emperor my consort, should speedily assemble from the eastern parts in one city and, when a council has been held there, issue on your authority, according to the dictates of faith and Christian piety, decrees relating to the catholic confession and to those bishops who were previously excluded (emphasis added)”: Letter of Pulcheria to Pope Leo from November 22, 450, Document 3 in Price and Gaddis 1:94.140MacMullen, 42.141E.g., Canon 28 was rejected by the papal legates and later by Leo, but it was still maintained in Constantinople. This is discussed in detail in the section, “III.B.ii. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: His Office - Bishop of Rome.”

the Ostrogoths controlled half of the Diocese of Pannonia; and the Huns created havoc

throughout both the eastern and western provinces. These different developments not only

caused “material devastation...upon the land, but a pervasive sense of disorder, as the Roman

imperial apparatus gradually receded.”142

Nestorius, the deposed archbishop of Constantinople, also noted problems within the

Empire in addition to attacks by the Huns and barbarians: pestilences, famines, hail, heat,

earthquakes, “and all kinds of ills.”143 In 447, an earthquake in the eastern Empire hit

Constantinople, breaching the imperial city’s defensive walls. All of these problems, Nestorius

argued, were not natural, but came from God;144 and such a rationalization was common: “any

rational person should see that God was angry with his church, and it was up to his true followers

to seek out and purge the errors that threatened Roman survival.”145 For this reason, appeasing

God by rooting out heresy was seen to be important for security in the empire: God would be

more likely to protect it if orthodoxy was widespread.146 To this end, in an edict from Marcian to

Palladius the praetorian prefect, the former explains this major reason for having called the

council: “Desiring to make the venerable holiness of the catholic faith of the orthodox clear and

indisputable for all, so that a greater respect towards obedience to the deity may be transmitted to

mankind.”147 Due to the great instability within the empire due to these calamities, it would seem

35

142Wessel, 5. For a brief survey of the barbarian invasions of the Western Empire, cf. Wessel, 27-34. Also, Jenkins provides a brief survey of invasions and other problems within both the Eastern and Western Empires, cf. Jenkins, 171-174.143Jenkins, 173.144Jenkins, 173, 174.145Jenkins, 174.146Jenkins, 171, 201.147“Second Edict Confirming Chalcedon,” Document 4 in Price and Gaddis, 3:130.

unpragmatic for Marcian to have called the council at this time unless he thought it would bear

practical results, such as stability.148

In addition to seeking this stability in the empire by appeasing the Christian God, it has

been argued that Marcian and Pulcheria sought religious unity amongst the people of the

empire,149 perhaps “so that political unity would emerge to help combat the military threat from

the east...”150 While unity in all forms was surely desired, the nature of a council whereby the

majority position is accepted, and the extent of imperial involvement in the Council of

Chalcedon in particular, indicate that genuine religious unity throughout the empire was a low

priority. Negotiations and concessions to bring about conciliar decrees acceptable to all, as had

occurred to bring about the Formula of Reunion (433), for example, took place at this council but

were not permitted at the expense of orthodoxy, nor the aforementioned imperial goals.151

While Marcian and Pulcheria agreed to many of Leo’s demands, their responses to some

were qualified so that it cannot be said that he received precisely what he sought. For instance,

while Marcian agreed to Leo’s request that a council be called he insisted that it would be held in

the East, as opposed to Italy, as Leo had requested in his correspondence with Theodosius.152

However, Marcian was willing at this time to concede that, should the location in the East be too

distant, Leo could inform him of such and he would choose a location closer to Italy.153

36

148Jenkins, 201.149Murphy, 9; De Vries, “The Reasons,” 3; Frederick W. Norris, s.v. “Chalcedon, Chalcedonian Creed,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., edited by Everett Ferguson, 233-234 (New York: Routledge, 1999), 233.150Norris, 233.151This point is discussed in more detail in the context of the negative reception of the council below in the conclusion.152Wessel, 270; Hughes, 86.153Letter of Marcian to Pope Leo from November 22, 450, Document 2 in Price and Gaddis 1:93; Hughes, 86.

The first reason for why Marcian wanted the council to be held in the East was so that it

would be geographically close to him in Constantinople and, therefore, more easily under his

observation and, to a degree, control. Given the political instability of the empire due to

barbarian invasions, Marcian needed to be in Constantinople from which he could most

adequately command military operations; so, it would have been imprudent for a council to be

held at a distant location, such as Italy. It was, in fact, for this reason that the council, which was

originally intended to occur at Nicaea, was moved to Chalcedon, which was significantly closer

to the imperial capital. Further, since Valentinian was emperor of the western empire, Marcian’s

influence would have been drastically lessened had the council been held there. Also, Valentinian

still did not recognize Marcian as senior augustus of the eastern empire and thus it would have

been imprudent for the latter to be present in the west under the former’s jurisdiction.

Another request that Leo made to Marcian in June of 451 was that the council be delayed

due to political problems in the west that would inhibit western bishops from attending. Further,

he argued that a council was no longer urgent due to Marcian and Pulcheria’s actions, already.154

Finally, Leo was concerned that a new council of bishops might discuss and make decisions on

doctrines contrary to Rome’s positions,155 and thought that christological questions were

adequately addressed within his Tome; the conciliar bishops should simply accept it.156 Marcian,

however, decided that the council would be held despite Leo’s concerns. He wanted an

ecumenical council to overturn Ephesus II, and it was the perspective of the eastern bishops that

a council’s decrees could only be overturned by another council with more bishops in

37

154Wessel, 272.155Leo, Ep. 83, 84.156Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to the Council from June 26, 451, Document 10 in Price and Gaddis 1:103-105.

agreement.157 Leo did not contest this decision, “but merely reminded the emperor that he

obediently conceded the new council, even though he would have preferred its postponement,”158

and later that he would preside at it through his legates.159 In large part, this was because Marcian

had already summoned the council before he had been informed of Leo’s concerns.160 Also,

though, Leo’s acceptance of Marcian’s decision followed from the understanding that the

authority to summon councils and ratify conciliar decisions, as well as the duty to protect the

Church and Faith were tenets of the emperor’s auctoritas sacerdotalis.161 Therefore, this need not

be seen as an instance contra Roman primacy.162

38

157L’Huillier, 186; MacMullen, 42.158Cf. Ep. 89, 90, 94 referred to in Wessel, 272.159Letter of Pope Leo to the Council from June 26, 451, Document 10 in Price and Gaddis 1:104.160Marcian sent summons to bishops to the council on May 17, 451, well before Leo wrote to him on June 9, 451 that he no longer thought it needed: Hughes, 87.161Drobner, 480. For Leo, the emperor’s auctoritas sacerdotalis was complemented by his potestas imperialis, which should be utilized “to bring about the external conditions for its [i.e., the Church’s] continued existence and development,” and not to interfere with internal ecclesiastical affairs: Drobner, 480.162Drobner argues that, even when Leo no longer wanted a council called that he “...could not question the emperor’s summoning authority.” Instead, Leo asked the emperor for the council to deal solely with dogmatic questions and, when Marcian refused this too, Leo agreed to send delegates to the council, anyway: Drobner, 486.

III.B.I. ACCEPTANCE OF LEO’S DOCTRINAL AND DISCIPLINARY DEMANDS:

APOSTOLICITY

Leo’s Tome has been called “the most important christological document of its kind

which the Latin church produced.”163 It was articulated in direct response to Eutychian

monophysitism, while also opposing Nestorianism, opposite extremes, in Leo’s view.164 This

document, while not permitted to be read by Dioscorus at Ephesus II, proved to be a very

important work at Chalcedon. It was accepted at the latter for a number of significant reasons,

among them being recognition from the majority of the conciliar bishops that it was consistent

with apostolic and patristic teaching; a principle to which Leo held firmly. Like most of the other

bishops, Leo was opposed to theological innovation and, thus, appealed to two major pillars of

orthodoxy: the Scriptures and the Fathers.165 As to the latter Leo’s Tome demonstrated a clear and

thorough understanding of the western christological tradition in particular, especially the works

of Augustine, but also Ambrose, and John Cassian.166 His work was also, however, influenced by

eastern fathers, especially Cyril of Alexandria.167 In this way, while influenced by western and

eastern christological traditions, Leo articulated an original position in a manner consistent with

“gospel authority, the prophetic sayings, and the apostolic teaching,”168 which were faithfully

39

163Grillmeier, 526.164Philip L. Barclift, “The Shifting Tones of Pope Leo the Great’s Christological Vocabulary,” Church History 66.2 (1997): 222. For a study on shifts in Leo’s christological vocabulary, see Barclift, 221-239; Wessel, 7; Frend, 241; While Leo wrote against Nestorian ideas in this work, he does not explicitly refer to Nestorius: Grillmeier, 532.165Wessel, 7; Jenkins, 185-6; Frend, 241. Leo’s insistence in opposing innovation can be seen in his Ep. 82.1 wherein he wrote to Marcian that the teachings of the Gospel and apostles, and interpretation of the Scriptures by the apostles and fathers were to be accepted by all, without any deviation: Price and Gaddis 1:97.166Drobner, 484; Wessel, 211-231; Frend, 241.167Barclift, 224.168Letter of Pope Leo to the Council from June 26, 451, Document 10 in Price and Gaddis 1:104.

preserved and handed-on by the fathers,169 in order to combat Eutychian monophysitism, while

also remaining firmly opposed to Nestorianism.

The main purpose of Leo’s work was to oppose the christology of Eutyches who would

not accept that after the Incarnation Christ could be said to have a human nature. While he did

not explicitly clarify his belief in this regard, it is most likely that Eutyches believed that the

humanity that the Word assumed at the Incarnation was immediately taken over by his divinity

and, thus, was deified, resulting in one incarnate divine nature.170 For this reason, he believed

that “despite being a perfect man, the body of Christ was of a different essence from ours,”171

and, thus, that he could not have experienced any human pains or temptations, such as thirst.172

In his Tome, Leo began and based his theological critique of Eutychian monophysitism

on one sentence from the Apostles’ Creed,173 that the Church believes “...in God the Father

Almighty, and in Christ Jesus his only-begotten Son our Lord, born from the Holy Spirit and

Mary the Virgin [emphasis added].” From this passage, Leo argued that Christ’s divinity and

humanity after the Incarnation are clearly taught. By virtue of being the Son of the Father who is

God almighty, Christ is “...begotten from eternity as coeternal [i.e., with the Father],” and equal

in power, glory and essence. This same Son was “...conceived from the Holy Spirit in the womb

of the Virgin Mother,” from whom “...the truth of the body was taken from [her] body, and...the

Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Thus, Leo argued that from the Incarnation onward

Christ was consubstantial with the Father in his divinity, and consubstantial with humans in his

40

169For instance, Leo wrote: “...[T]he catholic faith, which, with the Holy Spirit instructing us, we learnt from the blessed apostles through the holy fathers and also teach [emphasis added]”: Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from June 24, 451, Document 7 in Price and Gaddis 1:99.170Gonzalez, 371. At least, this is how Eutyches’ position was generally understood by his contemporaries: Wessel, 259.171Pásztori-Kupán, 19.172Jenkins, 174.173Grillmeier, 530.

humanity, the latter being “...pure and perfect nature of true man.”174 To this end, Leo cited

numerous passages from the Old and New Testaments that refer, directly or indirectly, to Christ’s

humanity. For instance, Christ is called “...the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt 1:1),

“from the seed of David according to the flesh” (cf. Rom 1:1-3), the seed of Abraham (cf. Gen

22:18; Gal 3:16), the prophesied son conceived and born of a virgin (cf. Isa 7:14), and “a

child...born for us, and a Son...given to us, and they...call his name...mighty God” (Isa 9:6).175

While Leo stressed the distinction between Christ’s natures, he also avoided an extreme

Antiochene christology, such as Nestorianism, by clearly stressing the unity of natures in the one

person of Christ: “For the one who is true God is himself also true man.” To support this point,

Leo refers to the confession of the Apostle Peter who came to recognize “the same [person] to be

both Son of God and Christ.” However, in order to also avoid an extreme Alexandrian position

whereby the natures are confused or mingled together as a result of the union, Leo further

nuanced his christology and stressed that after the union each of the natures’ respective qualities

remained unchanged. The communicatio idiomatum was such as that within the one person of

Christ, “both [natures] are with each other...[but] just as God does not undergo change through

compassion, so the man is not consumed by the greatness of divine dignity. For each form

performs what is proper to it in communion with the other...”176

That Christ was both fully human and fully divine in his one person was very important

for Leo on soteriological grounds: if Christ was lacking in the fullness of either nature, neither

salvation nor divinization would have been possible.177 Directed toward Eutychian

41

174Leo’s Tome in Price and Gaddis 2:15-17, 2.22.175Leo’s Tome in Price and Gaddis 2:16-17, 2.22.176Leo’s Tome in Price and Gaddis 2:17-21, 2.22. The quotes are from Price and Gaddis 2:19, 21, 19, respectively.177Leo’s Tome in Price and Gaddis 2:21, 2.22; Grillmeier, 531. With regard to the necessity of Christ being both fully human and divine for divinization, while Leo “...is far more restrained...,” he follows the thought of Athanasius (Grillmeier, 531), who was a major influence on his successor to the Alexandrian See, Cyril.

monophysitism, Leo wrote: “What is it to divide Christ if not to sever his human nature from him

and to try to make vain by shameless fictions the mystery through which alone we are saved?”

For Christ could not have suffered, died and been buried if he was solely divine, His Godhead

being “coeternal and consubstantial with the Father;” such could only have happened to his

person “in the weakness of his human nature.”178

After Leo’s Tome was read out at the second session, containing this dyophysite

christology, the conciliar bishops acclaimed:

This is the faith of the fathers. This is the faith of the apostles. We all believe accordingly. We orthodox believe accordingly. Anathema to him who does not believe accordingly! Peter has uttered this through Leo. The apostles taught accordingly. Leo taught piously and truly. Cyril taught accordingly. Eternal is the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same. Leo and Cyril taught accordingly. Anathema to him who does not believe accordingly! This is the true faith. We orthodox think accordingly. This is the faith of the fathers. Why was this not read out at Ephesus? Dioscorus concealed it.179

Thus, the majority of conciliar bishops clearly regarded Leo’s Tome as being consistent with

apostolic and patristic teaching, recognition that was reaffirmed at the fourth session when the

bishops declared the Tome to be consistent with the decrees of the councils of Nicaea (325) and

Constantinople (381).180

Among the recognized patristic authorities was also Cyril of Alexandria whose name was

mentioned four times in the above second session acclamation, a recognition that his theology

was orthodox and a standard against which the Tome was compared and found faithful.181 The

importance of Cyril is further indicated by the responses given to the Illyrian and Palestinian

42

178Leo’s Tome in Price and Gaddis 2:20-22, 2.22. The quotations are from Price and Gaddis 2:22, 21, 21, respectively. The Soteriological consequences of denying Christ’s humanity were first articulated by Leo in response to Manichaeism in the west, which he considered a form of Docetism: Wessel, 212-215.179Price and Gaddis 2:24-25, 2.23. For the original Greek, see ACO 2-I-2:81.180Price and Gaddis 2:127-146, 4.6-4.10.181Cf. Price and Gaddis 1:65-66 on the importance of consistency with Cyril’s christology for the Chalcedonic conciliar bishops.

bishops who made three objections to Leo’s Tome following its reading. The first two times,

Aetius, archdeacon of the church of Constantinople, responded and demonstrated the Tome’s

orthodoxy by references to Cyril’s works.182 Even more indicative of the council’s pro-Cyrilline

mentality, Theodoret of Cyrus responded to the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops’ third objection

by appealing to Cyril,183 even though he was “the champion of the Antiochene party,” having

been critical of Cyril’s Twelve Chapters and reluctant to accept the condemnation of Nestorius in

431.184

Indeed, while Leo was highly influenced by western christology, he was also familiar

with major tenets of Alexandrian and Antiochene christologies, and was particularly influenced

by Cyril who he greatly respected. In fact, both Leo and Cyril consulted and appealed to one

another during ecclesial disputes. For instance, Leo, in his capacity as Roman archdeacon, sided

with the latter in a jurisdictional dispute with Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, in 431. Also, during

his early episcopacy, Leo consulted Cyril during a debate over the proper time to celebrate

Easter, and they came to the same answer. In part for these reasons, that is Leo’s familiarity with

and respect for Cyril and his theology, the former accepted the latter’s christology. In 440, for

instance, Leo used the title Dei genetrix -- the Latin equivalent of QeotokoV -- for the Virgin

Mary in his first Christmas sermon as bishop of Rome.185

It is unsurprising, thus, that the Tome’s christology is consistent with Cyrillian

christological works, specifically the Formula of Reunion and Cyril’s Second Letter to

43

182Price and Gaddis 2:25-26, 2.24-2.25.183Price and Gaddis 2:26, 2.26.184Price and Gaddis 1:65-66.185Barclift, 224. Leo’s first Christmas sermon as bishop of Rome was Sermon 22.

Nestorius,186 both of which were accepted in the West and exhibit a “moderate” Cyrillian

christology.187 Moreover, while Cyril’s christology seems in opposition to Leo’s dyophysitism

due to the former’s use of the phrase “one incarnate nature (fuvsiV)” to describe Christ after the

union of his human and divine natures,188 this was a difference with Leo in terminology, not in

meaning. Specifically, while those of the Antiochene school tended to use fuvsiV to refer to an

individual human or divine nature,189 Cyril used the term in two senses, sometimes in this

manner, but also often as a synonym of ὑpovstasiV or provswpon, that is, to refer to the “one

concrete individual subject of the Incarnated Word.”190 When he refers to “one incarnate nature

(fuvsiV),” Cyril is using the term in the latter sense, to refer to Christ’s one “person.”191 Further,

that Cyril did not deny the presence of Christ’s unmingled divine and human natures within his

one person after the union is clear from references to this end in both his Second Letter to

44

186It was understood that Leo and Cyril’s respective christological formulas were compatible as long as Cyril’s “of two natures” was not understood to mean that there was literally a time before the Incarnation during which Christ had two natures: Gonzalez, 378-379. That the Formula of Reunion supported dyophysitism: Holum, 199, 216, and Price and Gaddis, 1:69.187The Second Letter to Nestorius was accepted at Ephesus I, the decrees of which Rome approved; and the Formula of Reunion of 433 was also accepted in the West: Frend, 241. Price and Gaddis use the term “moderate Cyrillianism” to describe the christology accepted by Cyril and articulated in the Formula of Reunion and his Second Letter to Nestorius. In the former document in particular, Cyril proved conciliatory by repealing in part his Twelve Anathemas, which had effectively condemned the Antiochene school’s entire christological approach: Price and Gaddis 1:23, 66.188For example, Cyril’s letter to Succensus refers to Christ’s “one incarnate nature:” Bevan and Gray, 632.189Cf. Hughes, 78.190John Anthony McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 140. Cyril’s use of fuvsiV and its meaning in his corpus has been widely debated among scholars. The position articulated here is that of McGuckin. Wickham advocates a similar position: Lionel R. Wickham, s.v. “Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 375-444),” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., edited by Everett Ferguson, 310-312 (New York: Routledge, 1999), 311. For various other positions on this topic, cf. Hans Van Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria (Boston: Brill, 2009), 15-20.191That Cyril meant this when he referred to mia fuvsiV is accepted by many scholars, including, McGuckin, 140; Hughes, 78; Lebon xxii-xxv, cited in and agreed to by Steppa, xix-xx.

Nestorius and his Letter to Acacius of Melitene.192 Thus, Cyril and Leo’s respective christologies

were in harmony, as the conciliar bishops at Chalcedon recognized.

While the vast majority of bishops would have been able to agree with Leo’s Tome for

this congruency with moderate Cyrillianism, which the majority of conciliar bishops accepted,193

moderates of the Antiochene school -- that is, pro-Nestorian bishops excepted -- would also have

been satisfied with it. After all, while the Tome was not Antiochene, it was intended by Leo to be

a critique of both radical Alexandrian and Antiochene christologies, specifically Eutychian

monophysitism and Nestorianism, respectively.194 In this respect, Leo’s christology was

moderate in that it condemned extreme positions while also embracing tenets many of which

were held by either or both schools (i.e., Alexandrian and Antiochene). As a result, Leo’s

emphasis on Christ’s two natures surely found favour with those Antiochenes whose christology

emphasized this distinction; and whose stress on Christ’s humanity found support, as well, due to

the Tome’s anti-Eutychian thrust.195 For example, the important and influential Antiochene

bishop Theodoret of Cyrus recognized, like Leo, that if Christ was not fully human then his life

and teaching would have had no relevance to human salvation and, moreover, his resurrection

would not have been that of a man but only of God and, thus, would not have resembled the

resurrection of humans.196

45

192In his Second Letter to Nestorius, Cyril refers to,“...one Christ and Son coming from them [i.e., two fuvseiV]--not implying that the difference between the natures was abolished through their union but that instead Godhead and manhood have given us the one Lord, Christ and Son by their mysterious and inexpressible unification.”: Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters, edited and translated by Lionel R. Wickham (New York: Oxford UP, 1983), 7. In his Letter to Acacius of Melitene, Cyril states: “By no manner of means have we abolished the difference between the terms [i.e., Christ’s human and divine natures]...The nature of the Word is, by general consent, one but we recognize that he is incarnate and became man...”: Wickham, Select Letters, 51.193Price and Gaddis 2:4, fn. 9; cf. 1:63-68.194Barclift, 222. In his letter to the Council of Chalcedon, Leo states that the Apostolic faith “condemns and prosecutes equally” Nestorianism and Eutychian monophysitism: Price and Gaddis 1:105.195On major distinctions between Antiochene and Alexandrian christologies, cf. Bell, 116-117.196Frend, 239; Wessel, 216, 218.

Based on the overwhelming acceptance of Leo’s Tome, it is surprising that the majority of

the conciliar bishops were at first in favour of using terminology at variance with it within the

dogmatic formula that they had reluctantly agreed to define. Specifically, all the bishops, the

Roman legates and some Oriental bishops of the Antiochene school excepted, accepted the first

draft of the Chalcedonic dogmatic formula, which almost certainly contained the phrase ejk duvo

fuvsewn.197 Those who objected wanted this phrase changed to ejn duvo fuvsesin, which more

explicitly taught that Christ was in two natures after the union. Even Anatolius, bishop of

Constantinople, for instance, had been involved in the writing of the draft with “ejk” and was in

favour of its approval and implied that he was opposed to the use of “ejn” therein.198

While it has been argued, however, that “the majority of bishops” responded negatively to

the ejn duvo fuvsesin-supporters, calling them Nestorians,199 this interpretation is problematic.

Originally, a draft dogmatic formula had been formulated by a committee that included

Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople. The following day,200 “All the most devout bishops apart

from the Romans and some of the Orientals” announced that they were satisfied by that dogmatic

formula.201 Here, it is clear that the majority of bishops were in favour of the formula, which

included ejk duvo fuvsewn. However, when the Roman legates soon after made their objection

explicit, and threatened to move the council to Rome, it is no longer clear how many bishops

continued to accept the dogmatic formula as it was: they are now simply called in the minutes,

46

197Jenkins, 209.198Anatolius defended the use of “ejk” after the imperial officials pressured the use of “ejn” on the basis that the former and not the latter had been acceptable to Dioscorus. Anatolius argued that Dioscorus had not been condemned for his christology, implying that “ejk” had not been condemned by the council and, thus, was a viable word choice: cf. Price and Gaddis 2:198, 5.13-5.14.199Jenkins, 209; De Vries, “The Reasons,” 5.200Price and Gaddis 2:197-8, 5.7, 5.12.201Price and Gaddis 2:197, 5.6.

“The most devout bishops.”202 That is, it is unclear how the majority of bishops responded after

the Roman legates had made their position clear. According to the sixth century deacon Rusticus,

the one responsible for “the last and most thorough revision of the Latin Acts [of the Council of

Chalcedon] (versio rustici),”203 only where it specifies that “all” the bishops acclaimed

something should it be understood that all of them did such.204 In following this principle, the

interpretation is supported that fewer bishops maintained support for the first draft of the

dogmatic formula after the Roman legates posed their objections. That said, those in opposition

will not have been an insubstantial number, as the imperial officials thought it necessary to

resolve the dispute by means of the emperor’s intervention.205

However, since the majority of bishops had approved Leo’s Tome, which contained the

latter phrasing, and later declared that the draft definition confirmed the christology of Leo,206 it

seems unlikely that most were opposed to the replacement of “ejk” with “ejn” on strictly

theological grounds.207 Rather, there are numerous reasons for why the bishops likely held this

position. Firstly, it seems quite probable that the phrasing ejk duvo fuvsewn was preferable to the

majority because such had been explicitly used by both Cyril and Flavian, separately,208 and

47

202Price and Gaddis 2:197, 5.11.203Price and Gaddis 1:84.204Price and Gaddis 2:10, fn. 17. Price and Gaddis imply their agreement with this principle, although they note an exception to it, different from the context herein under discussion: Price and Gaddis 2:10, fn. 17.205Cf. Price and Gaddis 2:199, 5.21-22.206Cf. Price and Gaddis, 2:198-199, 5.20.207Cf. Samuel who argues that the majority of the conciliar bishops agreed with Dioscorus’ theology: Samuel, 338-339.208For example, Cyril’s letter to Succensus states that Christ was “out of two natures” and had “one incarnate nature;” and in his Second Letter to Nestorius, Cyril qualifies the phrase, “one Christ and Son out of two” with “not as though the diverseness of the natures were done away by this union.” This latter letter was read and confirmed as orthodox at Ephesus I, and reread and accepted at the Home Synod of Constantinople: George A. Bevan, and Patrick T. R. Gray, “The Trial of Eutyches: A New Interpretation,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 101/102 (2008): 629-632. Flavian used this wording in his confession of faith at the Home Synod of Constantinople (448): “...Christ is from two natures after the incarnation, as we confess in one hypostasis and one person one Christ, one Son, one Lord”: Price and Gaddis, 1:186-187, 1.271. The minutes of the Home Synod of Constantinople, which contained Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius and Flavian’s confession of faith, were included in the minutes of Ephesus II, which were read at Chalcedon: cf. Price and Gaddis 1:168-229, 1.223-552. The bishops at Chalcedon were, thus, reminded or informed of Cyril and Flavian’s respective use of “out of two natures.”

christological writings of both were consistent with dyophysitism.209 Secondly, while Leo’s Tome

was accepted containing ejn duvo fuvsesin, his anti-Nestorian position was clear. The conciliar

bishops, however, may have been uneasy about using the phrase in a conciliar document when it

could be “seen as a victory for the ‘Nestorians,’”210 that is, when it could be interpreted in a pro-

Nestorian fashion; and when ejk duvo fuvsewn was sufficient in that it could be understood to

support dyophysitism, while also affirming the unity of Christ’s person.211 Thirdly, the conciliar

bishops had expressed numerous times that they were opposed to drawing up new dogmatic

statements, citing Canon seven of Ephesus I, which prohibited anyone to “produce or write or

compose any other creed” from that established at Nicaea.212 When the committee, established at

the second session at the initiative of the imperial representatives, returned with the dogmatic

formula containing ejk duvo fuvsewn, the majority of bishops were surely relieved that it did not

contain anything they perceived as problematic.213 To go through the process of redrafting the

formula left the possibility that problematic theology or wording could be inserted. That many

bishops suffered from this anxiety is indicated by their comments following the second draft’s

approval: “Let the metropolitans sign at once. Let them sign at once in the presence of the

officials. Let this splendid definition suffer no delay [emphasis added].”214 Thus, for these

48

209It was understood that Leo and Cyril’s respective christological formulas were compatible as long as Cyril’s “of two natures” was not understood to mean that there was literally a time before the Incarnation during which Christ had two natures: this was Eutyches’ belief, which had been condemned: Gonzalez, 378-379. Cyril’s Formula of Reunion of 433 supported dyophysite christology: Holum, 199, 216; Price and Gaddis 1:69.210Price and Gaddis 2:188.211The phrase ejk duvo fuvsewn can imply “into one nature (fuvsesi)” which affirms the unity of Christ’s natures, and is associated with Cyril: Stephen W. Need, Human Language and Knowledge in the Light of Chalcedon (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1996), 60. Leo was opposed to the phrase ejk duvo fuvsewn, and called it “absurd,” “senseless,” and “impious” in his Tome (Price and Gaddis 2:23, 2.22). However, he misunderstood its meaning, at least as articulated by Cyril, who meant that “there are two distinct elements [i.e., divinity and humanity] ‘before’ the union,” which were, thereafter, united in Christ: Price and Gaddis 2:23, fn. 68. Note, however, that Eutyches differed from Cyril in thinking that after the Incarnation Christ’s humanity was overtaken by his divinity: Jenkins, 174; Gonzalez, 371.212Gonzalez, 378; Quotation from Canon 7 in Tanner, 65.213Price and Gaddis 2:10, 183-184.214Price and Gaddis 2:205, 5.35.

aforementioned reasons, the majority of bishops can be understood not to have been opposed to

Leo’s Tome or his use of ejn duvo fuvsesin; they simply preferred ejk duvo fuvsewn.

Indeed, after pressure from the emperor and his imperial representatives, at the fifth

session the council agreed to the establishment of a second committee to redraft the dogmatic

formula.215 Brought back to the council was a formula that included belief, “...[in] one and the

same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change,

division, or separation...[emphasis added].”216 To this, the majority of bishops expressed their

agreement, acclaiming, “This is the faith of the fathers...This is the faith of the apostles. To this

we all assent. We all believe accordingly.” 217

That said, there clearly were bishops who considered ejn duvo fuvsesin to be borderline, if

not fully, Nestorian. Those in clear opposition included the bishops of Illyricum who acclaimed,

“Let those who dissent [from the draft dogmatic formula] make themselves known. The

dissenters are Nestorians. Let the dissenters go off to Rome.” 218 As noted above, they, along with

Palestinian bishops, had earlier posed objections to the Tome that were rebutted from writings of

Cyril.219 In addition, Cecropius, bishop of Sebastopolis, stated that those who did not accept the

draft definition should leave the council.220 It is probable that these and other like-minded

bishops preferred ejk duvo fuvsewn because, as in the case of Dioscorus, it allowed for a

monophysite interpretation.221 Such bishops within the Alexandrian school accepted the firmer

49

215Cf. Price and Gaddis 2:196-205, 5.2-5.36.216Price and Gaddis 2:204, 5.34.217Price and Gaddis 2:205, 5.35.218Price and Gaddis, 2:199-200, 5.25.219Price and Gaddis 2:25-26, 2.24-2.25. It is curious that after the Illyrian bishops made these objections in the second session, and before they did such again in the later fourth session, they had agreed that Leo’s Tome was in accord with the decrees of the councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381): Price and Gaddis 2:127, 4.8; 2:138, 4.98. 220Price and Gaddis, 2:199, 5.24.221Cf. Price and Gaddis 2:198, 5.13-5.14.

christology of Cyril, especially his Twelve Anathemas, and rejected the Formula of Reunion

from which two natures in Christ after the Incarnation could be defended, as shown above.222

50

222Price and Gaddis 1:65. For a brief study on those who opposed the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, including Leo’s Tome and dyophysitism, both at and after the council, cf. De Vries, “The Reasons.” For a modern miaphysite historical interpretation of the events preceding, at, and following the Council of Chalcedon, cf. Samuel, “Proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon and its Historical Problems.”

III.B.II. ACCEPTANCE OF LEO’S DOCTRINAL AND DISCIPLINARY DEMANDS:

HIS OFFICE - BISHOP OF ROME

A very significant reason for the acceptance of Leo’s Tome at the Council of Chalcedon

was its consistency with Scripture, Apostolic tradition, and the teaching of the Fathers, especially

as understood through Cyril’s writings. Another important factor toward its acceptance, as well

as that of Leo’s other disciplinary demands, however, was his influence as the Bishop of Rome.

As illustrated above, the Eastern bishops’ understanding of the role and authority of the bishop of

Rome was complicated; but it is clear that their understanding placed such at a lower level than

that advocated by Rome. That said, the Roman Church did hold a strong moral authority, as well

as a juridical authority that extended beyond its local jurisdiction, seen most clearly in the

Council of Sardica’s recognition of the Roman Church’s appellate status and the Council of

Constantinople’s clear affirmation of its preeminence in honour and privileges, both throughout

the universal Church.

At and with regard to the Council of Chalcedon there were also a number of references

that indicate such a recognition, albeit qualified. Firstly, in a letter written in Constantinople and

sent from emperors Marcian and Valentinian III in September 450, Leo was referred to as

“...possessing primacy in the episcopate of the divine faith...” and, thereafter, invited to hold the

presidency of the council.223 While Leo declined to attend, he sent his legates, under the

51

223Cf. Letter from Marcian to Pope Leo from September 450, Document 1 in Price and Gaddis 1:92-93. The phrase from this letter, “with you as author [of the council],” is interpreted by Neil as an invitation for Leo “to play a leading role at the synod...”: Neil, 43.

leadership of Bishop Paschasinus, to preside and hold the place of honour in his place.224

Throughout the Council, moreover, the Roman legates made strong and explicit claims to

the Roman Church’s preeminence and primacy, which were not disputed. One instance of this

occurred within the context of a proclamation by the Roman legates regarding Dioscorus,

specifically, Leo’s ecclesiastical response to his “lawless audacity” against Church canons,

refusing to allow Leo’s Tome to be read at Ephesus II, and other accusations. Worse still,

Dioscorus excommunicated Leo,225 and although summoned thrice by the Council of Chalcedon,

refused to attend. The Roman legates declared that, due to these charges,

“...the holy and most blessed pope, the head of the universal church, through us his representatives and with the assent of the holy council, endowed as he is with the dignity of Peter the Apostle, who is called the foundation of the church, the rock of faith, and the doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, has stripped him of episcopal dignity and excluded him from all priestly functions. What remains is for the venerable council assembled to pronounce, as justice bids, a canonical verdict against the aforesaid Dioscorus [emphasis added].”226

These claims to the juridical leadership of the universal Church are very strong, however, no one

countered them. Rather, the vast majority of the bishops agreed with the conclusion that followed

52

224While the imperial representatives presided over the proceedings in a technical sense, the Roman legates “...were recognized as holding formal presidency over the council”: Price and Gaddis 1:42. Kretschmar argues that Marcian and the eastern bishops recognized that the Roman bishop had “the right...to the presidency of the council”: Georg Kretschmar, “The Councils of the Ancient Church,” in The Councils of the Church: History and Analysis, edited by Hans Jochen Margull, translated by Walter F. Bense, 1-81 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 66. Leo wrote to Marcian, “I have sent my brother and fellow bishop Paschasinus...who can represent my presence [at the council]”: Letter from Pope Leo to Marcian from June 24, 451, Document 7 in Price and Gaddis 1:99. Leo also wrote in a letter to the conciliar bishops, “yet in these brethren, that is, Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius and the presbyters Boniface and Basil, who have been despatched by the apostolic see, let your fraternity deem me to be presiding over the council”: Letter from Pope Leo to the Council from June 26, 451, Document 10 in Price and Gaddis 1:104. That the legates held the place of honour, cf. Enrico Norello, “The Authority Attributed to the Early Church in the Centuries of Magdeburg and in the Ecclesiastical Annals of Caesar Baronius,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, Vol. 1, edited by Irena Backus, 745-774 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 764.225Dioscorus had excommunicated Leo at Nicaea, before Marcian had changed the venue to Chalcedon. “Since Leo had excluded Dioscorus from commemoration in the liturgy months earlier (see ep. 80, ACO 2.4 pp. 38–40, 13 April 451), this might seem a less than outrageous quid pro quo. One may surmise that it was stimulated by the exertion of pressure on the bishops assembled at Nicaea to sign Leo’s Tome”: Price and Gaddis 2:32, fn. 8.226Price and Gaddis 2:70, 3.94.

to depose Dioscorus. Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, even said: “I concur completely with

the apostolic see,”227 and while he was surely referring to the decision to depose Dioscorus, his

decision to use such broad and confirming language suggests that he did not have a problem with

the Roman claims to primacy, either. That none of the other bishops objected, suggests that they

did not have a problem with it, either;228 although some certainly abstained from objecting out of

fear, such as “the terrified Egyptians.”229 In total, 252 bishops present agreed to the deposition,

and still other bishops agreed later, bringing the total to 308.230 It is likely that the large number

of bishops who agreed to depose Dioscorus was strongly influenced by the fact that the sees of

Rome and Constantinople had agreed to such: “the archbishops of Old Rome and New Rome

were associated in a certain form of precedence.”231

Anatolius’ agreement with the Roman legates’ proposal to depose Dioscorus included

their charges against him. The former indicated this when he explained at the fifth session that

Dioscorus had been deposed not due to heresy, but “because he broke off communion with the

53

227Price and Gaddis 2:71, 3.95.228Note: “The Greek translation is less effusive about papal primacy: ‘Therefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of Great and Senior Rome, through us and the present most holy council, together with the thrice-blessed and wholly renowned Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and stay of the catholic church and the foundation of the orthodox faith, ...’” (Price and Gaddis 2:70, fn. 100). While the papal claim to being “the head of the universal church” is significantly absent from the Greek record -- and was more likely removed from it than added to the Latin record, since it was spoken by the Roman legates -- another pro-Roman point is added. Specifically, there is a shift from Leo being present “through us his representatives and with the assent of the holy council (emphasis added)” to “through us and the present most holy council.” The latter position could be interpreted to mean that Pope Leo was present, not only through his legates, but through the council, itself; a position explicitly supported by Julian, bishop of Hypaepa who argued that all of the bishops served as Pope Leo’s delegates at the Council of Chalcedon. That said, this interpretation was surely not intended by the Greek-speaking easterner/s who recorded it, since such a strong understanding of papal primacy was not held by many in the East: cf. Price and Gaddis 2:68-69, 3.91; Price and Gaddis 2:69, fn. 95.229Hughes, 91.230L’Huillier, 189; cf. Price and Gaddis 2:71-110, 3.95-3.96. News of the conciliar bishops’ decision to depose Dioscorus was sent to Marcian, who confirmed it and exiled Dioscorus to Gangra in southern Paphlagonia: Hughes, 91.231L’Huillier, 189.

lord Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time and did not come.”232 It is significant that

Anatolius’ stated reasons for Dioscorus’ deposition at session five included the latter’s

excommunication of Pope Leo, and not his behaviour at Ephesus II, which included his

vindication of Eutyches’ christology and his role in the deposition of Flavian.233 Thus, the

excommunication of Leo, the bishop of Rome, can be understood to have been a very significant

factor, and more so than actions taken against other prelates. In fact, when Anatolius listed the

reasons for the council’s deposition of Dioscorus at session five, his first reason was that he had

excommunicated Leo, followed thereafter by his absence when called to the council. If his

ordering has any significance, it reenforces the interpretation that the excommunication of Leo

was a primary cause of Anatolius’ agreement to depose Dioscorus, implying agreement with the

Roman legates who wrote similarly.

! In addition to the demand that Dioscorus be deposed, presumably only if he were

unrepentant,234 another of Leo’s disciplinary demands pertained to those bishops who, at Ephesus

II had lapsed and agreed to the decisions thereat out of fear, but thereafter repented and were

willing to sign that they condemned the decisions of Ephesus II. In this context, originally Leo

declared in a letter to Pulcheria from April 13, 451 that his legates in Constantinople, who were

54

232Price and Gaddis, 2:198, 5.14. Frend argues, “His [i.e., Dioscorus’] excommunication of Leo on the eve of Chalcedon without any sort of formal synod was an act of breathtaking audacity which only complete success in the ensuing meeting could have justified”: Frend, 238.233Just after the Roman legates proposed that Dioscorus be deposed, Anatolius stated that he “...concur[s] completely with the apostolic see,” but then provides only one reason for it: Dioscorus did not attend the council when he was summoned three times (Price and Gaddis 2:71, 3.95). Later, at the fifth session, Anatolius states that Dioscorus had been deposed for two reasons: “because he broke off communion with the lord Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time and did not come” (Price and Gaddis 2:198, 5.14). The explicit addition at session five of the crime of excommunicating Leo need not be taken to be absent in Anatolius’ intentions at session three. While he does not state it there, he does say that he “...concur[s] completely with the apostolic see,” the representatives of which had previously stated: “But he [i.e., Dioscorus] has greatly surpassed his first crimes [i.e., at Ephesus II] with his later ones, and had the presumption to pronounce excommunication against the most holy and sacred Leo archbishop of Great Rome...” (Price and Gaddis 2:69-70, 3.94). Thus, at the least, Anatolius did not disagree with the Roman legates on this matter at session three and, further, provided implicit agreement with them.234This is presumed, for Leo argues, “...if, as we desire, all abandon error, no one need lose his rank...”: Letter of Pope Leo to the Council from June 26, 451, Document 10 in Price and Gaddis 1:104.

sent on June 16, 450,235 had authority to reconcile them partially in cooperation with Anatolius,

and that the bishops would be fully restored into communion at a later date.236 However, on June

9, 451, Leo wrote to Marcian that his plan had changed: Leo would send different legates to

Rome who, in cooperation with Anatolius, would reconcile repentant bishops. Leo no longer

thought that a council was needed.237 This changed slightly once more, however, after Leo

learned that the council had already been summoned by Marcian.238 He now wrote a letter of

instruction to the council, which would eventually be held at Chalcedon, and which was

presented there by his legates. Specifically, he instructed that his Tome was the correct teaching

on Christ’s natures,239 but he also provided further instruction on disciplinary matters. He

implied that the same should occur that he had earlier written to Pulcheria and Marcian, namely

that repentant lapsed bishops from Ephesus II were to be reconciled and accepted back into

communion.240 Moreover, he instructs that justice should be done for those bishops who were

unjustly deposed at Ephesus II for their unwillingness to accept its decrees, and whose sees were

still held by bishops appointed by Theodosius II. Leo instructed that the former bishops should

be granted back their rights and privileges of episcopal office, but also stated that “no one need

lose his rank” if he is repentant of his crimes, including the appointees of Theodosius II. With

these two qualifications, Leo left the council to decide how to resolve the

55

235Hughes, 86, fn. 16.236Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Pulcheria from April 13, 451, Document 4 in Price and Gaddis 1:94-96; Hughes, 86-87. Leo also notes in his letter to Marcian from April 23, 451 that his representatives en route to Constantinople would be involved in the reconciliation of the lapsed from Ephesus II: cf. Document 5 in Price and Gaddis 1:96-98.237Hughes, 87.238For Marcian’s letter inviting bishops to a council, cf. Letter of Marcian to the Bishops from May 23, 451, Document 6 in Price and Gaddis 1:98-99.239Specifically, he wrote, “may the futile infidelity of the erring cease, and may it not be permitted to defend what it is not permitted to believe, since... [the Tome] declared most fully and most lucidly what is the pious and pure confession of the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ”: Letter of Pope Leo to the Council from June 26, 451, Document 10 in Price and Gaddis 1:104.240He does not directly instruct this, but implies it when he states, “for if, as we desire, all abandon error, no one need lose his rank...”: Letter of Pope Leo to the Council from June 26, 451, Document 10 in Price and Gaddis 1:104.

situation.241

! With regard to repentant lapsees of Ephesus II, the Roman legates followed Leo’s

instructions to follow the canons and ecclesiastical law, but to be merciful and granting of pardon

“to those returning to unity and peace.”242 To this end, during the third session, the Roman

legates announced: “To them [i.e., repentant lapsees], however, the apostolic see grants pardon,

because they are proved to have done what was perpetrated against their will, in such a way that

they still now adhere to both the most blessed pope and the ecumenical and holy council, and as

a result have obtained the remedy of sacred communion.”243

On October 26, the ninth session involved an examination of Theodoret of Cyrus who

had been deposed by Ephesus II, but readmitted by Pope Leo. The Council of Chalcedon

required him to condemn Nestorianism and accept the Council’s doctrinal decrees. Theodoret did

so, and his episcopal honours and episcopacy were reaffirmed “just as Pope Leo had judged right

and proper.”244 Similarly, on October 26 and 27, the case of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, was

addressed. Adversaries of Ibas were present and wanted the charges against him and for which he

was condemned at Ephesus II to be read. The imperial officials proposed that the charges found

within the Ephesus II records be read for the Council. However, the Roman legates argued that

since the decrees of Ephesus II had been annulled by Pope Leo, they need not be read; and their

argument was accepted. The Roman legates thereafter declared that Ibas had been declared

innocent of the charges against him, and the majority of the council agreed. Some others required

him to anathematize Nestorius first, and he agreed to do so.245

56

241Hughes, 87-88; Letter of Pope Leo to the Council from June 26, 451, Document 10 in Price and Gaddis 1:104.242Letter of Pope Leo to Pulcheria from July 20, 451, Document 11 in Price and Gaddis 1:105; Wessel, 273.243Price and Gaddis 2:69-70, 3.94.244L’Huillier, 197.245L’Huillier, 198-199.

As noted above, another demand of Leo’s was that his Tome be accepted as the faith of

the Church; and after it was read at the second session of the council, the conciliar bishops

declared their agreement with it. This did not happen, however, without discussion on the Tome,

including questioning, by a minority, as to its orthodoxy.246 It has been argued that such

discussion was contrary to Leo’s demands as articulated in his letter to Marcian from April 23,

451.247 However, what Leo stated is that he did not want discussion when orthodoxy on a given

matter had been established “by the Holy Spirit Spirit through the disciples of the truth.” That is,

Leo seems to have been referring to historical instances where the faith of the Church had been

clarified by the Fathers and heresy condemned. In particular, he referred to Eutyches and said

that it had already been established that he held “impious opinions” and that Dioscorus had made

a “wrong judgment” in having condemned Flavian,248 presumably referring to the decisions of

the Home Synod of Constantinople, which were approved by Leo, as well as the decisions of the

Roman synod that condemned and deposed Dioscorus for his actions at Ephesus II.249 Thus,

while Leo clearly held that his Tome was orthodox and wanted the council to accept it, nowhere

does he explicitly forbid the conciliar bishops to discuss or debate it.250

After it had been debated, it is clear from their acclamation that the conciliar bishops

accepted it as orthodox because it was consistent with the teaching of the apostles and fathers,

57

246For example, the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops made three objections to Leo’s Tome following its reading, the first two of which were rebutted by Aetius, archdeacon of the church of Constantinople, and the third by Theodoret of Cyrus: Price and Gaddis 2:25-26, 2.24-2.25. See the above section, “III.B.i. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: Apostolicity” for a more full discussion of objections to Leo’s Tome and christology.247Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from April 23, 451, Document 5 in Price and Gaddis 1:96-98; De Vries, “The Reasons,” 4.248Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from April 23, 451, Document 5 in Price and Gaddis 1:97.249Soloviev, 187, 189. At the first session, Lucentius told the Council of Chalcedon that this had occurred: Soloviev, 189.250Contra De Vries, Schatz argues that while Leo did not believe that his Tome could be rejected, because he believed it to contain truths pertaining to Christ and the Incarnation, he “called for agreement based on discussion and accommodation among the fathers”: Schatz, 44.

including Cyril, and therefore was “the true faith.”251 This is consistent with the analysis on the

Tome’s apostolicity demonstrated above. Less clear, however, and a source of debate among

scholars, largely because it is prima facie “inherently ambiguous,”252 is the phrase within this

acclamation, “Peter has uttered this through Leo.”253 It appears amidst a string of acclamations

declaring the Tome orthodox, essentially due to its apostolicity and, thus, is considered by some

to mean just that: the teaching within the Tome was consistent with the apostles and fathers.254 It

was “a singularity where the heavenly Peter and the earthly Leo for once spoke with one

voice,”255 that is, taught the same.

This interpretation is uncontroversially correct with regard to the acceptance of the Tome

due to apostolicity. However, the way in which this acclamation is phrased (i.e., “...uttered this

through...”) suggests an additional meaning.256 After all, within the whole acclamation, of which

this phrase is a part, references to Leo’s teaching vis-à-vis that of other apostles and fathers (i.e.,

other than the Apostle Peter) are phrased in a distinctly different way. Essentially, they all contain

the structure: Leo’s teaching is apostolic or patristic teaching (e.g., “This is the faith of the

fathers”), rather than, “the apostles/fathers/Cyril have spoken through Leo,” which is quite

different. Thus, the full significance of the phrase, “Peter has uttered this through Leo,” is best

understood when compared with other acclamations that are worded more similarly.

58

251Price and Gaddis 2:25, 2.23. For the entire acclamation, cf. Price and Gaddis 2:24-25, 2.23, which is quoted in full above under the section, “III.B.i. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: Apostolicity.”252Nichols, 166.253“Πέτρος διὰ Λέοντος ταῦτα ἐξεφώνησεν”: E. Schwartz, ed., Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Vol. 1-4 (Berlin, 1914), 2-1-2:81.254 For instance, this position is held by: Wilhelm De Vries, Orient et Occident: Les Structures ecclésiales vues dans l’histoire des sept premiers conciles oecuméniques (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1974), 140; Francis A. Sullivan, Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), 68; Emilianos of Meloa, 350.255Nichols, 166.256Schatz also argues that it is too simplistic to interpret this passage as solely referring to the Tome’s apostolicity: Schatz, 44.

The contemporary understanding that God was present at councils and worked through

those present was foundational to the belief that the decrees of ecumenical councils were

authoritatively binding; it was understood that “it was divinity that prevailed.”257 Due to this

belief, it was not uncommon for statements with regard to councils to involve references to

divine involvement.258 For instance, Athanasius of Alexandria wrote that, “...the spoken-word

(ῥῆµα) of the Lord through the ecumenical synod at Nicaea remains forever.”259 Regarding past

councils, Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople, declared at the Home Synod of Constantinople,

“It is both most pious and necessary for us to agree with what has been correctly defined, for

who can oppose the words of the Holy Spirit?”260 Similarly, the bishops at Ephesus II acclaimed,

“God has spoken through Dioscorus,” “the Holy Ghost has spoken through Dioscorus.”261 Thus,

given that the principle of divine guidance was well established, it is not surprising that such was

the mentality at Chalcedon, as well. For instance, in response to the imperial officials who made

a suggestion to the council regarding the episcopacy of Athanasius of Perrhe, Cyrus, bishop of

Anazarbus, acclaimed, “God has spoken through you.”262 Given this consistency, it seems

reasonable to understand the phrase “Peter has uttered this through Leo” in the same way, that is,

59

257MacMullen, 42.258MacMullen, 42.259Ad Afros 2; J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus (series Graeca) (MPG) 26 (Paris: Migne, 1857-1866), 1032.260Home Synod of Constantinople minutes read at Chalcedon; Price and Gaddis 1:186, 1.270.261Quoted in Hughes, 84. Murphy translates these acclamations as: “Dioscorus has spoken by God! The Holy Spirit has spoken through Dioscorus!”: Murphy, 22. Other pre-Chalcedonic examples, include: A Church historian wrote in c. AD 480, “these men [the 318 of Nicaea] or rather the Holy Spirit speaking through them...” (Quoted in MacMullen, 132, endnote 7). Dioscorus of Alexandria referred at Ephesus II to “...the Holy Spirit [who] sat together with the fathers [i.e., at the councils of Nicaea and Ephesus I], as indeed he did, and decreed what they decreed...” (Price and Gaddis, 1:155, 1.145). Also at Ephesus II, Julian, bishop of Tavium, stated, ‘The concord, inspired by the grace of God, of the 318 fathers who assembled in the city of Nicaea and accurately defined the dogmas, is acknowledged by all who do not reject the laws of piety to have clearly been the voice of the Holy Spirit ... just as those previous fathers at the beginning wrote at the dictation of the Spirit...” (Price and Gaddis 1:276, 1.884.18). Another example from Chalcedon: “the most devout bishops” acclaimed, “The Holy Spirit dictated the definition [i.e., the draft Chalcedonic dogmatic formula]” (Price and Gaddis 2:197-198, 5.12).262Price and Gaddis 3:61, 14.164.

as referring to a divine intervention or inspiration. It is significant, however, that following the

reading of Leo’s Tome, the conciliar bishops did not refer to the Bishop of Rome as inspired by

God but, rather, that “Peter has uttered this through Leo [emphasis added].”263 It was, thus,

understood by the conciliar fathers that Peter had literally taught through the person of Leo, or

otherwise inspired him.

That this novel principle was articulated in this way at this council is appropriate, since it

reflects an understanding of the inspiration of the Roman bishop that was first advocated by the

conciliar bishops’ contemporary, Leo.264 As articulated above, the latter developed an

understanding of papal authority vis-a-vis the Apostle Peter by which the bishop of Rome is the

“representative of Peter” in not only a judicial sense but also a spiritual sense: this bishop was

“Peter’s mystical or sacramental embodiment.”265 Thus, while also arguing that the Holy Spirit

inspires and directs the bishop of Rome,266 Leo also held that it was Peter who directly guides his

successor. That the bishops used the phrase “Peter has uttered this through Leo” seems indicative

that they were familiar with and accepted this understanding of the Roman bishop’s person and

office.267

Moreover, after the Council of Chalcedon had concluded, a letter was sent to Leo

60

263Price and Gaddis 2:24, 2.23.264Wessel argues that Leo’s understanding of the Apostle Peter being present in the person of the bishop of Rome was “accepted and considered by the Council of Chalcedon,” as witnessed by their acclamation: Wessel, 288, fn. 12. Also, John Jay Hughes calls the acclamation “...an exact echo of Leo’s doctrine of the Pope as Peter’s living voice”: John Jay Hughes, Pontiffs: Popes Who Shaped History (Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1994), 42. Quoted in Stephen K. Ray, Upon this Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 239, fn. 199.265Nichols, 165.266For instance, Leo wrote: “...[T]he catholic faith, which, with the Holy Spirit instructing us, we learnt from the blessed apostles through the holy fathers and also teach [emphasis added]”: Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from June 24, 451, Document 7 in Price and Gaddis, 1:99.267In his letter to Ephesus II (i.e., Ep. 33), Leo argued that Theodosius had invited him to the council so that Peter himself could interpret his confession of faith to the council (cf. Matt 16:13-19), that is, in the form of Leo’s Tome. Of course, Dioscorus had prohibited this letter from being read at the council. See Samuel, 344, fn. 63. For Ep. 33, cf. Schaff, 46-47.

officially from the council -- although only sixty-five bishops signed it --, informing him of the

conciliar decisions, and asking for his approval.268 Within this work, the bishops praised Leo,

often with reference to his ecclesiastical office, to a very surprising degree, especially given what

is understood to have been the Eastern church’s understanding of Roman and Petrine authority in

the Church.269 One of these phrases expresses the same sentiment as “Peter has uttered this

through Leo.” Specifically with reference to the teachings given to the Apostles by Christ, “...you

[i.e., Leo] have yourself preserved, being for all the interpreter of the voice of the blessed Peter,

and bringing down on all the blessing of his faith [emphasis added].”270 Indeed, this passage

subtly references Peter’s confession of faith,271 and could be interpreted simply as an

acknowledgment that Leo faithfully preserved and taught it. However, this passage, especially

when read in the context of the whole letter, is clearly an instance of the bishops “explicitly

acknowledging the authority” Leo wielded by being the successor of Peter in the apostolic see.272

Moreover, the wording “interpreter of the voice,” alludes to the same understanding that Peter

continues to “speak” through the Roman bishop, the latter of whom makes its meaning known.

It is granted that these praises, including this one, are widely interpreted as disingenuous

by modern scholars, who judge that the bishops held an ulterior motivation. Specifically, within

the same letter, these bishops informed Leo about Canon 28, and asked him to do that which his

legates had refused: confirm it. Their praises, thus, are generally discounted as flattery that did

61

268Letter of The Council Fathers to Pope Leo, Document 2 in Price and Gaddis 3:120-128.269For instance, they refer to Leo as having been: “...for all the interpreter of the voice of the blessed Peter...,” their “...guide in the good,” as “the leader, as the head of the members,” as “...him who had been entrusted with guarding the vineyard by the Saviour,” as their “father” and “...the head [who] should fulfil for the children [i.e., themselves] what is fitting”: Letter of the Council Fathers to Pope Leo, Document 2 in Price and Gaddis 3:120-124.270Letter of the Council Fathers to Pope Leo, Document 2 in Price and Gaddis 3:121.271Cf. Matthew 16:16; John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (London: James Toovey, 1845), 306.272Wessel, 274.

not reflect their actual beliefs regarding the bishop of Rome’s authority.273 However, while this is

likely correct, some of the phrases likely reflected genuine belief, even if exaggerated, among

them being the aforementioned reference to Leo as “the interpreter of the voice of the blessed

Peter.” After all, this concept finds expression elsewhere where there is no evidence to suppose

that the proclaimers were being disingenuous, the conciliar reference to “Peter has uttered this

through Leo” being one instance.274

Moreover, this interpretation of the acclamation is consistent with that known to have

been held from at least the early seventh century onward in both eastern and western

Christendom.275 For instance, John Moschos, a seventh century contemporary of Sophronius,

bishop of Jerusalem,276 wrote the Leimonarion of St. Sophronius in which is contained a legend

regarding Leo and his Tome. It states that after he had written his Tome, Leo placed it on the

tomb of the apostle Peter and prayed to him that if he had erred in it, that Peter would correct it.

After forty days, Peter appeared to Leo and told him, “I have read it and corrected it,” and Leo

found that his Tome, which had been on Peter’s tomb, had been altered by the apostle Peter,

himself.277 This pious narrative from an eastern Christian, thus, demonstrates the belief that Peter

was directly involved in ensuring the orthodoxy of Leo’s Tome and, therefore, “that Leo had

62

273R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon: A Historical and Doctrinal Survey (London: S.P.C.K., 1953), 127.274The following argue that this particular acclamation was sincere, while they may disagree on its precise meaning: Schatz, 44; Wessel, 298-299; J. N. D. Kelly, “Leo I, St.,” in The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, 43-45 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005), 44; Christopher M. Bellitto, The General Councils: A History of the Twenty-One General Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II (Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 2002), 26; Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, 4th ed., edited by Alcuin Reid (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008), 101.275Jaroslav Pelikan, “The Challenge of the Latin Church,” in The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Volume 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), 146-198 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974), 148-149.276Sophronius referred to the Tome as, “The divinely given and divinely inspired epistle of the great and brilliant and divinely minded Leo, of the most holy church of the Romans...”: Soph. Ep. syn. [PG 87: 3188]; Quoted in Pelikan, 149.277Neil, 4.

indeed been the spokesman for Peter and for the Holy Spirit at Chalcedon.”278

It is not being argued that Leo’s disciplinary demands, and doctrine within his Tome were

accepted at the council simply because they came from the bishop of Rome, as though it was

recognized as having a formal and binding authority upon the conciliar bishops.279 Indeed, while

Leo understood his messages to the council as instructions, they were understood by the latter

more so as authoritative proposals; they could be rejected, but due to the office of him from

whom they came, they were first given a high presumption of validity. After all, “Leo was

always regarded [in the East and West] as the holder of the chair of Peter, and his instructional

letter was seen as kergyma of the chair of Peter. Rome was regarded as the church in which the

charism of the apostle Peter is always present.”280 However, while the Bishop of Rome was

understood to wield an authoritative office throughout Christendom,281 the Eastern bishops

generally did not consider his decisions to be necessarily binding,282 and they understood the

ecumenical council to be more authoritative than he or any individual bishop.283 Thus, it was in

this context that some of Leo’s demands, or those of his legates, were not immediately accepted

by the council. For instance, it was for this reason that Leo’s requirement that Dioscorus not be

63

278Pelikan, 149. Sophronius wrote that he accepted all of Leo’s writings, “as if they came from the mouth of the leader Peter.” It is important to note, however, that he also accepted all of Cyril’s writings as having the authority of the apostle Mark. For Sophronius, Leo and Cyril were “the two pillars of orthodoxy”: Pauline Allen, ed. and trans., Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and Other Documents (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009), 42.279Schatz also argues that this is, indeed, an untenable position, which would not have been held by the Eastern bishops: Schatz, 44.280Schatz, 44.281Schatz, 44. Daley argues that, throughout Christendom, “the ejxaivretoV timhv, the primary position of honour and influence in the world Church, [was understood to be held by the]...Bishop of Rome”: Daley, 546.282There were exceptions, such as Julian, bishop of Hypaepa in the province of Asia, who held that the Bishop of Rome held ultimate authority, and that all the bishops served only as his delegates at the Council of Chalcedon: Price and Gaddis 2:69, fn. 95. At session 3 of the Council of Chalcedon, after Dioscorus refused his third summons to the council and Paschasinus, the Roman legate, asked the council what is penalty should be, Julian said: “But now your holiness [i.e., Paschasinus] has the authority of the most holy Archbishop Leo, as does the entire holy council convoked according to the grace of God and the decree of our most pious emperors... We therefore ask your holiness, who represents – or rather all those who represent – the most holy Archbishop Leo, to deliver sentence upon him and to pronounce against him the penalties contained in the canons”: Price and Gaddis 2:68-69, 3.91.283Wessel, 309.

seated with the council was approved only after it was discussed by the bishops. Another

example is the depositions of Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, which were not

overturned until the two were separately scrutinized by the council, even though they had earlier

been reconciled by Leo to the Roman Church. Finally, perhaps the most significant instance

whereby the conciliar bishops did not accept one of Leo’s demands on his authority alone was

their refusal to accept his Tome before they discussed it, and some objections were resolved. It

was only after they did so that it was accepted as the Church’s faith.

The Roman Church’s understandings of its own primacy, as well as ecclesial authority

more broadly vis-à-vis that of the Eastern churches came to a particular impasse due to the

Council of Chalcedon’s Canon 28. This lengthy canon in dispute contains numerous decrees

pertaining to the authority of the Church of Constantinople, which are declared by the conciliar

decree to be in congruency with the Fathers, and “the same decree and resolution” as Canon

three of the Council of Constantinople (381). By appealing to the principle of accommodation,

the conciliar bishops declared that Old Rome was granted prerogatives because it was the

imperial capital; and since Constantinople was New Rome (i.e., the new imperial capital), the

Council of Constantinople had granted that church prerogatives equal to those held by the

Roman Church in ecclesiastical matters, and declared it second in honour after it.284 Further,

The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of

64

284Tanner, 99-100.

Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.285

On the last day of the council,286 the Roman legates protested that on the day prior this canon had

been passed in their absence and that of the imperial officials, and that it violated the canons of

Nicaea, and the authority and dignity of the Roman Church.287 Later, too, when Leo approved the

Council of Chalcedon’s doctrinal and disciplinary decrees, he refused to accept Canon 28,288 and

for at least six major reasons.

Firstly, the authority of Canon 28 was founded in large part on being a re-affirmation of

Canon three of the Council of Constantinople, a council which had not been formally accepted in

the West.289 This was in part because Rome was weary of establishing a council in addition to

Nicaea as having binding canons, and through which the canons of Nicaea would have to be

interpreted.290 Moreover, while the conciliar bishops of Chalcedon claimed that in passing Canon

28 they were “following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising [Canon 3

65

285Tanner, 100.286L’Huillier argues for the date of November 1: L’Huillier, 268. Drobner proposes October 30, 451: Drobner, 489.287Price and Gaddis 3:75, 16.4; 3:91, 16.45. Note: 185 or more bishops were present when Canon 28 was passed: Martin, 433.288Cf. Leo’s letters to Marcian, Pulcheria, and Anatolius, Ep. 104-106; cf. Letters to Marcian and Anatolius, Documents 9-10 in Price and Gaddis 3:142-150.289Rome was aware of Canon 3 by the autumn of 381, but the Council of Constantinople had not formally informed Rome of it (Dvornik, 44-45). Due to an acceptance of the principle of accommodation in the West, along with the principle of apostolicity, the West “passively accepted” Constantinople’s elevation to second place: Dvornik, 47. That said, Rome had granted only “tacit support” to the authority wielded by Constantinople prior to the Council of Chalcedon: Daley, 547. The Roman legate Lucentius argued: “...while the decrees of the 318 have been set aside, they have manifestly made mention only of [the decrees of] the 150, which are not among the conciliar canons,” Price and Gaddis 3:84. As Price and Gaddis note, Lucentius was correct in his assertion that the canons of the Council of Constantinople “were absent from the standard edition of canons repeatedly cited at the council”: Price and Gaddis 3:85, fn. 32. While the Bishop of the Alexandrian Church, Timothy, had formally agreed to Canon 3 (Dvornik, 49), this church resented the new ecclesial ranking brought about by it, which reduced this church’s status as the most important see in the east to second, and third in the universal Church. As a result, on numerous occasions the Alexandrian Church tried to embarrass the bishops of their rival, the Church of Constantinople, including working to have them deposed. This motivation can be discerned to have contributed to the opposition of Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria, to the christology of Nestorius, archbishop of Constantinople who was also trained in Alexandria’s theological rival, Antioch. Dioscorus of Alexandria also held animosity toward the Constantinopolitan Church and its bishop, Flavian; he wanted the latter to be humiliated, and for the Alexandrian Church to be more esteemed and doctrinally influential in the universal Church; Jenkins, 183; Bell, 117-118, 131; Gonzalez, 354, fn. 1. For more examples of the rivalry between Alexandria and Constantinople, see Dvornik, 48-51.290Daley, 547-548.

of the Council of Constantinople [381],” 291 this was not accurate. This latter canon had simply

stated, “Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of

honour after the bishop of Rome.” 292 The bishops who passed Canon 28 at Chalcedon, however,

who claimed to “issue the same decree and resolution,” declared not only that the See of

Constantinople was second only to the See of Rome, but that her prerogatives were to be equal to

those of Rome, as well.293 This latter declaration of equal privileges with Rome was, at the very

least, “reading words into the text” of Canon 3,294 which had simply declared Constantinople “to

have privileges of honour” second to Rome.295 Thus, the Roman Church was opposed to Canon

28 because it was largely founded on a canon it did not approve, and even if it did it would have

been recognized that Canon 28 actually diverged from Canon three.

A second major reason for the Roman Church’s rejection of Canon three of

Constantinople and Canon 28 of Chalcedon was that they both altered Canon six of Nicaea,

which declared an order of precedence that Leo interpreted as binding and unchangeable: Rome,

Alexandria, Antioch. Leo held such a position likely because he maintained the importance of

continuity with apostolic tradition, and considered himself, as successor of St. Peter, to be its

66

291Tanner, 99-100. As noted in section “I. Pre-Chalcedon: The Primacy and Influence of the Bishop of Rome,” honour in the early church was directly linked to authority. To this end, Canon 3 should be understood as meaning: “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the prerogatives of office (ta; presbei:a th:V timh:V) after the Bishop of Rome, because it [i.e., Constantinople] is a new Rome”: Daley, 534292Tanner, 32.293Tanner, 100.294Martin, 434, fn. 5.295Tanner, 32; cf. Martin, 435.

ultimate guardian.296 To this end, Leo wrote to the Council Fathers from Chalcedon after it had

concluded concerning Canon 28, and declared: “On the matter of preserving also the inviolable

decrees of the holy fathers which were issued at the council of Nicaea...whatever differs from the

canons of the aforesaid fathers will be null and void.”297

Thirdly, in addition to being canonized at Nicaea, Leo argued that the reason for Rome,

Alexandria, and Antioch being the three sees of honour in that order was because of their Petrine

connections: the Roman See was founded by Peter; the See of Alexandria had been founded by

Mark, Peter’s disciple; and the See of Antioch was the site of Peter’s preaching and where the

term “Christians” was first applied to converts.298 Rome was opposed to Canon 28, in part,

because it resulted in the demotion of Alexandria and Antioch.299

The fourth reason for the Roman Church’s dismissal of Canon 28 is connected to the

third reason. Leo objected to episcopal sees’ honour being founded on their political/temporal

standing, which could usurp dignity that arose ecclesiastically.300 To this end, Leo wrote to

Marcian, “Let the city of Constantinople, as we desire, keep its high rank...Yet secular affairs

have a different rationale than divine ones...”301 Similarly, Pope Leo was perturbed by Canon 28

67

296Daley, 548. Leo makes this point clear in his letter to Marcian from May 22, 452: “For the privileges of the churches, having been bestowed by the canons of the holy fathers and defined by the decrees of the venerable council of Nicaea, cannot be overturned by any unscrupulousness or changed by any innovation. In the faithful performance of this task with the help of Christ I am obliged to render perseverant service, because it is a stewardship that has been entrusted to me, and it brings guilt upon me if the rules of the fathers’ enactment, which were drawn up under the direction of God’s Spirit at the council of Nicaea for the government of the whole church, are violated with my connivance... [emphasis added]”: Document 9, Price and Gaddis 3:144. Also, cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Anatolius of Constantinople from May 22, 452, Document 10 in Price and Gaddis 3:146-150; cf. Pope Leo to the Empress Pulcheria from May 22, 452, ACO II 58, I.33-59, I.2; cf. Pope Leo to Julian of Kios from May 22, 452 in ACO II 62, II.14-17; cf. Letter of Pope Leo to the Council Fathers from March 21, 453, Document 13 in Price and Gaddis 3:153-154; cf. Pope Leo to Maximus of Antioch from June 11, 453 in ACO II 73, II.34f.297Letter of Pope Leo to the Council Fathers from March 21, 453, Document 13 in Price and Gaddis 3:153-154.298Dvornik, 52-53.299Drobner, 489; cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Anatolius of Constantinople from May 22, 452, Document 10 in Price and Gaddis 3:146-150, esp. 147-149.300Daley, 548-549.301Letter of Pope Leo to Emperor Marcian from May 22, 452, Document 9 in Price and Gaddis 3:144.

only referring to the principle of accommodation, lacking any mention of “the apostolic and

Petrine character of the see of Rome.”302 The See of Rome had lost the prestige it had as capital

of the Empire and residence of the Emperor. Thus, its prominence was now only supported by

the principle of apostolicity,303 and being the former imperial capital and residence of the

emperor.

Fifthly, Leo was most likely opposed to Canon 28 because it moved Constantinople

closer to Rome’s canonical status, and was a threat to its authority: “Rome was always nervous

of any attempt to raise other sees to anywhere near its level. Who knew that in a few decades

another council might place the imperial capital as equal to Rome, or even superior?”304 It was a

more immediate threat to the Roman Church’s authority, as well: Constantinople would be

considered “a second see of primacy.”305 In opposing Canon 28, Leo opposed its subjugation “of

metropolitans to their regional patriarch, cutting off their ancient right of appeal to him who was

the successor of St. Peter in the Apostolic See of Rome [ -- the chief Earthly shepherd of the

Church]”306 who had been granted such prerogatives by canons three, four, and five of the

Council of Sardica (c. 343).307

The sixth major reason for the Roman Church’s refusal to accept Canon 28 was the

seemingly deceptive manner by which it had been approved: at an “informal meeting of the

council,” during which the imperial officials were absent,308 and officially undertaken to decide

68

302Dvornik, 51.303Dvornik, 51.304Jenkins, 215-216.305Drobner, 489.306Martin, 457-458.307For information on the Council of Sardica and these canons, cf. above section, “I. Pre-Chalcedon: The Primacy and Influence of the Bishop of Rome.” Dvornik implies disagreement with this point. He argues that had Canon 28 included mention of Rome’s apostolic and Petrine foundation as the basis of its preeminence, “it would have been difficult for the Pope to refuse his approval”: Dvornik, 52.308Price and Gaddis 3:68.

upon matters pertaining to the local church of Constantinople. According to Aetius, archdeacon

of the church of Constantinople, the Roman legates were invited to attend but declined because

such was not part of their mandate from Pope Leo;309 the bishops of Illyricum, who were under

the authority of the Bishop of Rome, were “conspicuous by their absence,” as well.310 It has been

argued that the Roman legates, and perhaps bishops of Illyricum, may have been aware of the

extent of the discussion that became Canon 28, but that they chose not to attend due to the

absence of the imperial officials, without whom they “fear[ed]...they would be unable to make

their voice heard.”311 However, the legates proved throughout the council to be far from timid,

especially in defense of Roman primacy, which can be seen by their firm opposition to Canon 28

at the following session. Thus, it seems likely that they were unaware of the extent of the

discussion to be had at the session. After all, the canon did not simply reaffirm Canon 3 of the

Council of Constantinople but, rather, expanded it,312 including changes to the patriarchates,

which required the consent of all the patriarchs,313 including the Bishop of Rome represented by

his legates. In this way, contra Aetius, the discussion did not pertain solely to local matters of the

Constantinopolitan church, but the universal Church. For this reason the Roman legates were

understandably upset that they had been absent, and surely felt misled.

However, this is not to mean that the pro-Roman parties were intentionally misled by

Constantinople, per se. It is more likely that the crux of disagreement stemmed from differences

between the Eastern and Western bishops in understanding the authority and canons of the

Council of Constantinople. After all, there is not any indication in the Acts that, apart from the

69

309Price and Gaddis: 3:75, 16.6.310Price and Gaddis 3:68.311Price and Gaddis 3:67-68.312Martin, 434-435.313Wilhelm De Vries, “Ecumenical Councils and the Ministry of Peter,” in Four Vienna Consultations, edited by the Ecumenical Foundation, Pro Oriente, 159-174 (Vienna: Ecumenical Foundation, Pro Oriente, 1988), 161.

Roman legates, there was any disagreement that the session pertained only to local affairs of the

Constantinopolitan church. Nor is there any protest, aside from the Roman legates, that Canon 28

was innovative in expanding the primacy of the Constantinopolitan See, not even from Maximus,

bishop of Antioch, whose See was implicitly affirmed as fourth in honour by it, whereas it was

third according to Canon six of the Council of Nicaea.314 In both cases, the Eastern bishops

presumed the authority of Canon three of the Council of Constantinople as binding on the

universal Church, in which it had been declared that the See of Constantinople was second in

honour after Rome. The Roman legates, in contrast, did not. While Leo was surely aware of

Canon three, Rome did not consider the council as authoritatively on par with Nicaea nor

Ephesus, and had never officially approved the decrees or canons.315

Reasons two, three, and four provided above refer to Rome’s perception of the principle

of apostolicity as greatly more important than the principle of accommodation, which was that

by which the Eastern fathers were principally influenced. Thus, they did not understand Leo’s

reasoning for not accepting Canon 28 as founded on the principle of apostolicity, especially since

“they had not the slightest intention of denying the Primacy to Rome...”316 Rather, Canon 28

was, in a way, pro-Roman: It “assure[d] and confirm[ed] for both of them [i.e., the churches of

Constantinople and Rome] a position of eminent and coordinated power within the...Church

70

314Cf. Price and Gaddis 3:73-91, 16.2-16.47. That Maximus of Antioch agreed to Canon 28: Price and Gaddis, 3:76, 16.9.2.315Cf. Dvornik, 44-47; Daley, 547.316Dvornik, 52. While Canon 28 was not anti-Roman, it was certainly anti-Alexandrian; an effort to elevate the authority of the Constantinopolitan Church and limit that of the Alexandrian Church. The two churches were rivals, and Alexandria had demonstrated its capacity and willingness to extend its influence beyond the region of its jurisdiction. Beginning with Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople, Canon 28 of Chalcedon was partially Constantinople’s effort to ensure an end to the Alexandrian Church’s meddling in its affairs: Cf. Dvornik, 48-51; Frend, 244; Norris, 233; Daley, 537-539.

[emphasis added].”317 Moreover, while Canon 28 granted Constantinople the prerogatives of

office that Rome wielded “in its own geographical sphere of influence,”318

...on the wide stage of Christendom, the hallowed traditional ‘firstness’ of ‘Old Rome’ is still to be respected; the ordained i]sa presbei:a of Constantinople, as defined by this resolution, are in no sense to be seen as a contradiction of the ejxaivretoV timhv, the primary position of honour and influence in the world Church, of the Bishop of Rome.319

That Canon 28 was not intended to be anti-Roman is also illustrated by a situation on the day

after the canon had been passed by the conciliar bishops and it was protested by the Roman

legates. During this final session of the council, the Roman legates read a Latin translation of the

Nicene Creed, which was preceded by a passage lacking from the Greek copy that was thereafter

read: Romana Ecclesia semper habuit primatum.320 To this end, the conciliar bishops will have

recognized this supplement to the creed that emphasized Roman primacy throughout the

universal church. However, there is no record in the conciliar minutes of any objections from the

bishops, implying the bishops’ agreement with it.321

After the Council of Chalcedon had concluded, but before Leo himself had refused to

recognize Canon 28, the conciliar bishops, Marcian, and Anatolius all separately sent him letters

that sought his approval of Canon 28,322 which contained high praises of Leo and his office as

Bishop of Rome. For instance, within the letter from the conciliar bishops,323 Leo was declared

to be the one who received from God and preserved the christological teaching he articulated in

71

317Daley, 553.318Daley, 546. 319Daley, 546.320I.e., “The Roman church has always had the primacy”: Nichols, 169.321Dvornik, 52; Nichols, 169.322Dvornik, 52; cf. Letter of the Council Fathers to Pope Leo, Document 2 in Price and Gaddis 3:123-124; Letter of Marcian to Pope Leo, Document 7 in Price and Gaddis 3:137; Letter of Anatolius to Pope Leo, Document 8 in Price and Gaddis 3:140-141.323This letter to Leo was one of many traditionally sent out to bishops absent from a council to inform them of the results: Drobner, 489.

his Tome; “...the interpreter of the voice of the blessed Peter;” the bishops’ “guide in the good;”

“the leader, as the head of the members [at the Council of Chalcedon];” “ him who had been

entrusted with guarding the vineyard by the Saviour.”324 While these remarks are prima facie

indicative of the bishops’ recognition of a Roman primacy akin to that understood and advocated

by Leo, they need to be understood in the context of the entire letter in which they were written.

Later in this letter, the bishops tried to persuade Leo to accept the new jurisdictional privileges

that the council had granted to Constantinople in Canon 28, and it was surely for this reason that

the bishops praised Leo and his office to the degree that they had.325

Anatolius’ post-conciliar letter to Leo is similar to that from the bishops. Therein, in the

context of trying to convince Leo to approve Canon 28, he wrote gratuitously of Leo and his

episcopal office, such as referring to Leo as “your beatitude,” “your sacredness,” “O most holy

one,” and “most God-beloved and blessed father;” and to the Roman Church as an “apostolic

see” and “father” of the Constantinopolitan Church, which has always worked for the good of the

Church. Further, Anatolius wrote that both he and the council sought Leo’s “approval and

confirmation” of Canon 28 “so that from the care you bestow on it all may be convinced that,

having shown genuine solicitude from of old, you continue to exercise the same care of it at the

present time also.”326 As with the letter from the conciliar bishops, these praises from Anatolius

are surely gratuitous, part of his effort to elicit Leo’s approval of Canon 28, which directly

benefitted Anatolius and his church.

72

324Letter of the Council Fathers to Pope Leo, Document 2 in Price and Gaddis 3:121-122.325Wessel, 298-299; Sellers, 127. Some have taken these remarks to be genuine, such as Ray, 239, fn. 200. However, most scholars seem to judge these remarks to be at least partially disingenuous.326Letter of Anatolius to Pope Leo, Document 8 in Price and Gaddis 3:140-142.

These attempts to convince Leo to approve Canon 28, firstly, illustrate that Anatolius and

the conciliar bishops, as well as Marcian, did not understand the canon to be contrary to the

Roman Church’s dignity or preeminence.327 Rather, that they sought such was indicative of their

understanding that the Roman Church’s approval was important due to it being a patriarchate and

the preeminent church, although not a recognition of papal authority over the Council of

Chalcedon’s decisions. Since Canon 28 altered the established system of the patriarchates, it was

important for all of the patriarchs to approve it. However, since Leo and his successors refused to

recognize the canon, but it was thereafter recognized in the Eastern Church’s record of the

council’s canons and implemented at Constantinople a century later, the Roman Church’s

approval clearly was not understood to be essential.328 Thus, the Eastern Church clearly

understood the decisions of an ecumenical council to be more authoritative than the Bishop of

Rome.329

73

327Dvornik, 52.328De Vries, “Ecumenical Councils and the Ministry of Peter,” 161. For examples of Canon 28 utilized by bishops of Constantinople after Anatolius, cf. Daley, 549.329Frend, 244.

III.B.III. ACCEPTANCE OF LEO’S DOCTRINAL AND DISCIPLINARY

DEMANDS: LEO AND DIPLOMACY

A major factor that led to Leo’s demands being met at the Council of Chalcedon relate to

Leo, himself. Specifically, Leo was a “forceful, energetic, and charismatic figure” who was

committed to issues important to him,330 and worked hard as a leader to bring them to fruition.331

In fact, Leo embodied “the strongest leadership” for his time, a period when the other

patriarchates were held by less politically savvy bishops: Flavian of Constantinople and Domnus

of Antioch were weak leaders, and Dioscorus lacked “political finesse.”332 In this regard, Leo’s

skills as an administrator, diplomat and negotiator proved tremendously beneficial.

While Leo’s pre-episcopal life is largely unknown, it is clear that he was from a wealthy

and prominent Roman family, and that he received a distinguished education in rhetoric and

law,333 of which, as is clear from his letters and sermons, he became an expert. These works

display “refined style, rhythmic prose, purity of language, conciseness of expression, and clarity

of thought.”334 That is, his writing style was “committed to clarity and accessibility,” rather than

persuasion, suggesting that his principal aim was to teach.335 While this style might not be best

suited for diplomatic purposes, Leo’s approach to the latter, as with his politics, theology, and

decision making regarding disciplinary matters, was effective because it was generally moderate

74

330Quote from Bell, 130.331On this matter, Gibbons argued that Leo “deserved the appellation of Great by the successful zeal with which he labored to establish his opinions and his authority, under the venerable names of orthodox faith and ecclesiastical discipline: Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York, 1960), 491; Quoted in Wessel, 1.332Drobner, 480.333Drobner, 478.334Basil Studer, “Italian Writers Until Pope Leo the Great,” in Patrology Vol. IV: The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature From the Council of Nicea to the Council of Chalcedon, edited by Angelo Di Berardino and translated by Placid Solari, 564-612 (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, Inc., 1988), 595.335Wessel, 7, fn. 16.

and conciliatory.336 His literary style assisted him so that his ideas to this end were generally

articulated with “precision and equilibrium of expression.”337

Throughout the decades prior to the Council of Chalcedon, Leo trained and became a

willing and able tactician in ecclesiastical politics. By the early 430s, he held the influential role

of either deacon or archdeacon within the Roman Church,338 a position that many popes had held

and in which he received training that helped prepare him to become an effective administrator

and bishop.339 Thus, likely in part for these reasons, but also because Roman sensibilities

dictated the importance of following custom, the use of proper diplomatic methods and canonical

procedures were very important to Leo.340

In his diaconal role, Leo was enabled to exercise his knowledge and capabilities in

ecclesiastical politics, which he undertook with great success. For instance, by 430 he served as

an adviser to Pope Celestine in the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius, and commissioned John

Cassian to write his De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium. In 431, Leo again intervened on

behalf of Cyril and gained Celestine’s support in opposition to the attempts of Juvenal of

Jerusalem to promote his see to a patriarchate.341

Further, Leo was enabled to develop his diplomatic skills due to the role of deacons as

legationes publicae, which involved diplomatic assignments on behalf of the imperial court. An

example of this was a mission to Gaul in 440 where he intervened in a dispute between Albinus,

75

336Drobner, 481. According to Drobner, “...scholars unanimously [agree]” that Leo was both humble and moderate, which assisted him in being conciliatory: Drobner, 481.337Studer, 593.338Neil argues that Leo became a deacon during the reign of Sixtus III (r. 432-40): Neil, 3. Drobner, in contrast, contends that it is likely that Leo was an archdeacon by 430: Drobner, 479.339Neil, 3; Nichols, 165.340Jenkins, 184.341Drobner, 479.

praetorian prefect of Gaul, and Aetius, a general.342

With this training and experience, Leo was well prepared to engage in diplomacy during

his episcopacy (r. 440-461). While after the Council of Chalcedon, two examples in particular are

important for underpinning the extent of Leo’s capabilities in this regard, specifically two

occasions during which Leo intervened to save Rome from destruction by barbarian invaders, a

civic role he fulfilled in the absence of strong secular leadership.343 The first instance was in 452

when Leo traveled with imperial delegates to meet Attila the Hun at Mantua.344 As a “diplomat

seasoned” by prior negotiations, the western emperor, Valentinian III, Roman senate and

populace had asked him to be involved, and the result included Attila’s decision not to invade

Rome.345 Indeed, Leo’s precise role in this process is uncertain, and may have been primarily to

discuss terms for the ransom of captives, a task that bishops increasingly were necessitated to

undertake during the fourth and fifth centuries. Moreover, there may have been other factors that

influenced Attila’s decision not to invade Rome. According to the historian Priscus, Attila’s

decision was motivated largely by a famine devastating Italy; and according to Jordanes, Attila

was superstitiously concerned that his fate would follow that of Alaric who had died soon after

his capture of Rome in 410. Regardless of these factors, however, it is clear that Leo was

“instrumental in the negotiation of a truce” that spared Rome.346 That Leo’s negotiatory skills

were effective and important in this instance is substantiated by his involvement in another effort

to spare the former imperial capital. Specifically, in 455, Genseric, king of the Vandals, led an

army to Rome at which time Leo convinced him not to destroy the city nor kill its inhabitants,

76

342Neil, 3.343Neil, 6.344Drobner, 481.345Wessel, 46.346Neil, 8-9.

although he could not spare the city from pillage.347

Given his diplomatic efforts and successes, it is not surprising that Leo maintained this

strategy to address the outcomes of Ephesus II of which he was vehemently opposed.

Theoretically, he could have responded in one of at least three different ways. Firstly, Leo could

have simply argued that, since his Tome and its orthodox christology were rejected by the

council, he refused to accept its proceedings and results on the basis of his primacy as Bishop of

the Roman Church.348 Such a response, moreover, would have been consistent with the “guiding

principle” of Pope Leo’s papacy to defend the dignity and prerogatives of the Roman Church,

which he understood to be “a sacred trust to be jealously guarded above all else.”349

Another possible course of action would have been for Leo to recognize the declarations

of Ephesus II as legitimate on the basis of their being professed by an ecumenical council

“whose views simply differed from his own.” This, after all, had been the approach taken by

Theodosius II after Cyril and Nestorius had held rival councils at Ephesus (431).350 Due to his

understanding of Roman primacy, however, and his role as Bishop of Rome, this option never

would have been acceptable to Leo. As successor of the Apostle Peter, he believed that it was his

obligation to defend the Apostolic faith, and vigorously oppose heresy and uncanonical

behaviour,351 which he understood Ephesus II’s decrees to be.

A third approach open to Leo was one with which he had much experience and that he

decided to undertake: conciliatory diplomacy. He decided to reject the decisions of the council as

some others did, such as the Roman synod (449), and oppose them through writing to and

77

347Drobner, 481.348Wessel, 260.349Frend, 237.350Wessel, 260.351This is discussed in detail in the section, “II.B. Leo’s Ecclesiology: Roman Primacy and the Bishop of Rome in the Universal Church.”

convincing imperial officials, patriarchal bishops, other clergy and monks that his Tome was the

correct interpretation of christology, and that his other disciplinary demands were best.352

Through this method of forming close ties with many influential people, Leo “gradually

facilitated the acceptance of his ecclesiastical polices in certain segments of the East.”353

In choosing this approach, it should be noted, Leo did not neglect to defend his authority

and dignity and that of his Church but, rather, appealed to it on numerous occasions. Moreover,

as noted above, Leo’s understanding of his role required him to defend the Apostolic faith

throughout the Church. However, while he felt obligated to do such above all other bishops, this

was, nonetheless, in concert with them: “For though to the blessed Peter first and foremost He

[i.e., Christ] says, ‘Feed My sheep;’ yet the one Lord directs the charge of all the shepherds...”354

Such was an important aspect of Leo’s understanding of the interrelationship between bishops,

but also priests, as concordia sacerdotum within the Church as communio sacramentorum. The

emperors, too, exercised for the Church the authority of imperial auctoritas sacerdotalis by

which their secular power was utilized to protect the Church and the Apostolic faith, including

the capacity to summon councils to this end.355 These aspects of Leo’s ecclesiology underpinned

his understanding of the Church, and were major motivations for his conciliatory approach to

diplomacy.

Leo was highly skilled at negotiating and persuading people to his cause.356 However, he

had been unable to convince Theodosius II to overturn Ephesus II, his letters to this end even

78

352Wessel, 260.353Wessel, 261.354Leo, Sermon 63 in Schaff and Wace, 177. On this matter, Studer wrote that Leo “...was anxious to coordinate the responsibilities of the Apostolic See with those of the episcopal college”: Studer, 593. For example, “in the interests of the communio fidei,” he had thorough documents pertaining to the Eutychian controversy sent to bishops of Gaul and Spain in 449: Studer, 595-596.355Drobner, 480.356Cf. Wessel, 261.

failing to provoke a response.357 Thereafter, Leo began a campaign to convince Theodosius

indirectly, which began with correspondence to Pulcheria on October 13, 449. In this letter, he

described that his papal representative was prohibited from presenting his Tome at Ephesus II,

and explained his certainty that she was in agreement with the Tome’s dyophysitism. Then,

having commissioned her “as a special legate of the Blessed Apostle Peter,”358 Leo asked her to

intervene with the emperor, her brother.359 Although she was unable to influence the situation

due to Theodosius’ support for Ephesus II, she sent Leo a letter around March 450 wherein she

voiced her support for his position.360

! Leo also appealed to Flavian’s episcopal successor at Constantinople, Anatolius. He tried

to ensure that he accepted his Tome, Cyril’s letter to Nestorius on the Incarnation, and Ephesus

I’s christological decrees and florilegium, and that he would publicly acknowledge the faith

contained within these documents. Further, he requested that Anatolius convince Theodosius to

acknowledge this christology, and excommunicate those who deviated from it. If bishops and

priests refused to accept it, Leo argued that a new council should be summoned in Italy, certainly

under his control.361 While not exactly conciliatory, this subtle threat was surely expected by Leo

to bring a positive response to his request for a council, which would be summoned in the East.

Leo also utilized his influential episcopal office to petition the western imperial court of

Valentinian III with which he had strong relations.362 In early 450, Leo, accompanied by other

79

357Cf. Leo, “Letter XLIII” and “Letter XVIV” in Schaff and Wace, 52-53, 53-54, respectively.358Holum, 202-203.359Wessel, 264-265.360Holum, 205.361Wessel, 269-270; Cf. Leo, “Letter LXIX” in Schaff and Wace, 63-64.362Studer, 593. The western imperial family, in writing to the Eastern imperial family on behalf of Leo in 450, “...spoke not of a power vacuum in Rome, but of an effective collaboration between the ecclesiastical and political spheres that had been shaped by Leo’s prior experience in state diplomacy and by his dealings with the Italian aristocracy: Wessel, 263.

bishops and clerics, approached the imperial family, including the Emperor Valentinian III, when

they were at Rome. They pleaded with the imperial family to intervene with Theodosius II, who

was a relative, and to ask him to overturn Ephesus II and accept Leo’s Tome. The imperial family

could have reacted negatively as, while it was implied that they were orthodox, Leo’s petitions

suggested that Theodosius was a heretic. They responded positively, however, and each sent

letters to Theodosius as Leo had requested.363 Further, they even petitioned that the eastern court

recognize the Bishop of Rome’s right to “adjudicate all matters concerning the faith and

clergy.”364 Leo was, thus, clearly persuasive, but it is important to note that Valentinian was a

weak leader and likely hoped to gain from the elevation of Rome.365

After all these efforts, Marcian wrote to Leo in September of 450 to inform him that he

agreed to summon a council. While his intentions were complicated, his decision likely involved

knowledge of the aforementioned correspondence with Theodosius, which indicated how

strongly Leo wanted a new council.366

In this way, Leo found in Marcian and Pulcheria “the help necessary for ordering the

church of the empire and clarifying christological belief.”367 In particular, Leo wrote to and

thanked Pulcheria on April 13, 451. He thought her assistance was chiefly responsible for the

council being called, Flavian’s remains being interred, and bishops being recalled who had been

exiled for supporting Flavian; the first two actions of which he had explicitly requested.368 While

a sincere recognition of her influence, the length and degree of Leo’s praises likely indicate

80

363Wessel, 261-262; Hughes, 85; cf. Leo, Ep. 55-58 in Schaff and Wace, 57-58.364Wessel, 263; cf. Leo, Ep. 55 referred to in Wessel, 263.365Wessel, 263.366Wessel, 270. For a detailed discussion of imperial motivations for the summoning of the Council of Chalcedon, cf. the section, “III.A. The Summoning of the Council of Chalcedon: Influences of Leo and Imperial Officials.”367Grillmeier, 529-530.368Wessel, 270-271; cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Pulcheria from April 13, 451, Document 4 in Price and Gaddis 1:94-96.

exaggeration; part of his strategy to garner her continued support for his causes which, given her

capacities and power in the imperial court, were invaluable.369 Within this same letter, in fact,

Leo made further requests: he asked her to acquaint herself and support pro-Flavian clergy and

Julius of Cios, the papal legate to Constantinople. Leo then referred to other representatives he

had sent to the imperial city whom “informed your piety of what needs to be done or decreed;”

an insinuation that he anticipated her continued support.370

Ten days later, on April 23, 451, Leo also thanked Marcian for responding favourably to

his requests “for the peace of the church.”371 He needed not only Pulcheria’s support, but also

that of Marcian and, thus, it is unsurprising that Leo provided convincing reasons for why

Marcian should support orthodoxy and oppose heresy. Specifically, he argued that such would

bring about ecclesial unity between the eastern and western empires, which had been ecclesially

divided following Ephesus II, and politically following Marcian’s elevation to the eastern

imperial throne.372 This resultant “increase of love and faith [in ecclesial unity] makes the

military power of each invincible, since the result of God’s being appeased by a single

confession is that the falsity of heretics and the enmity of barbarians are equally overthrown,

most glorious one.”373 Since both eastern and western empires were threatened by numerous

barbarian peoples,374 Marcian surely would have found the promise of divine assistance enticing.

Following these efforts to persuade Marcian for his continued support, Leo made further

requests. With regard to christology, Leo asked the emperor to ensure that no one would be

81

369Wessel, 271.370Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Pulcheria from April 13, 451, Document 4 in Price and Gaddis 1:95-96.371Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from April 23, 451, Document 5 in Price and Gaddis 1:97.372Marcian had essentially usurped the imperial throne by being elevated without the consent or consultation of Valentinian III. For further explanation, cf. the section, “III.A. The Summoning of the Council of Chalcedon: Influences of Leo and Imperial Officials.”373Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from April 23, 451, Document 5 in Price and Gaddis 1:97.374Wessel, 27-34; Jenkins, 171-174, 200.

permitted to “inquire into what must be held as if the matter were uncertain,” presumably the

truth of dyophysitism, as well as the conclusion that Eutyches’ monophysitism was heretical, and

Dioscorus’ deposition of Flavian at Ephesus II was unjust.375 Rather, Leo argued, the council

should only decide on disciplinary measures for those who had lapsed at Ephesus II.376 To this

end, Leo informed his legates that he wanted the lapsees to be dealt with moderately. As he

worded it in a letter to Pulcheria: “forgiveness should be granted to those returning to unity and

peace.”377 In taking this uncontroversial and moderated approach, Leo “assumed a measure of

control over the conciliar process.”378

In June of 451, Leo changed his mind and, through letters and his legates, asked that the

council be delayed due to political problems in the west that would inhibit western bishops from

attending. Further, he argued that a council was no longer urgent due to Marcian and Pulcheria’s

actions in support of Leo’s positions, already. Finally, Leo was concerned that a new council of

bishops might discuss and make decisions on doctrines contrary to Rome’s positions.379 Due to

the slow pace of communication, however, Leo was not aware that Marcian had already

summoned the council before he had even sent his letter of concern.380 When he learned of this,

Leo did not contest Marcian’s decision, “but merely reminded the emperor that he obediently

conceded the new council, even though he would have preferred its postponement.”381 As part of

his approach to obtaining his goals, Leo “...never missed an opportunity to ingratiate himself

82

375Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from April 23, 451, Document 5 in Price and Gaddis 1:96-98.376Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from April 23, 451, Document 5 in Price and Gaddis 1:96-98.377Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Pulcheria from July 20, 451, Document 11 in Price and Gaddis 1:105.378Wessel, 273.379Wessel, 272; Cf. Leo, Ep. 83, 84 referred to in Wessel, 272.380Marcian summoned the bishops in letters sent on May 23, 451, while Leo sent his letter of concern on June 24, 451; Cf. Letter of Marcian to the Bishops from May 23, 451, Document 6 in Price and Gaddis 1:98-99; Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from June 24, 451, Document 7 in Price and Gaddis 1:99-100; Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from June 26, 451, Document 8 in Price and Gaddis 1:100-101.381Wessel, 272; cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from June 26, 451, Document 8 in Price and Gaddis 1:100-101.

with the imperial court.”382

! Leo influenced the council’s agenda through legates and, thus, continued the same

“strategy of indirect persuasion.”383 Thereafter, he also sent legates to defend his positions at the

council, which he was not able to attend personally. These legates were the bishops Paschasinus

of Lilybaeum, Lucentius of Asculanum, and Julian of Cios, and presbyters Boniface and Basil,384

the latter of whom was not present at the council and is presumed to have died en route. Of these,

only Julian was fluent in Greek while the others participated with the aid of translators.385 With

them, Leo sent, in addition to his Tome, a letter instructing the bishops, as opposed to requesting,

that they “use the Tome as the standard of orthodoxy.”386 He also stated that not only should

Eutyches’ monophysite doctrine, accepted at Ephesus II, be condemned, but that the

condemnation of Nestorianism from Ephesus I should “remain in force,” as well, to avoid any

confusion over the Council’s position and so that the dyophysitism of his Tome could not be used

in Nestorianism’s defense. The conciliar bishops accepted Leo’s rationale and followed it.387

While Leo’s skills as a negotiator and diplomat were effective in many of his goals being

achieved, this only worked to a degree. For instance, Leo’s request that the council be held in

83

382Wessel, 272.383Wessel, 271.384cf. Letter of Pope Leo to Marcian from June 26, 451, Document 8 in Price and Gaddis 1:100-101.385Price and Gaddis 1:42.386Wessel, 273; cf. “Pope Leo to the Council” from June 26, 451 in Price and Gaddis 1:103-105.387Cf. Letter of Pope Leo to the Council from June 26, 452 in Price and Gaddis 1:104; cf. Wessel, 273-274. Wessel draws a connection between Leo’s ability to convince the conciliar bishops and their “[recognition of] the authority he had inherited through the succession of bishops that was the apostolic see: ‘This knowledge, descending to us like a golden chain by order of the Enactor, vigorously you have yourself preserved, being for all the interpreter of the voice of the blessed Peter, and bringing down on all the blessing of his faith”: Wessel, 274. This position, however, seems tenuous. It seems more likely that the bishops separately were convinced of Leo’s arguments, and were convinced to a degree of Leo’s authority as Bishop of Rome. The latter is discussed in detail in the section, “III.B.ii. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: His Office - Bishop of Rome.” Moreover, it is likely that the particular passage quoted in Wessel was written by the conciliar bishops disingenuously. After all, they thereafter tried to persuade Leo to accept Canon 28, which the Roman legates had rejected: Sellers, 127. Canon 28 is discussed in detail in the sections “III.B.ii. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: His Office - Bishop of Rome,” and “III.B.iv Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: Eastern Imperial Interests.”

Italy was denied by the emperor and empress who, as explained above, wanted it close to

themselves in Constantinople where they could monitor and influence it.388 Secondly, even

following the strong protests of the Roman legates and Leo’s refusal to recognize it, Canon 28

was passed by the council and recognized as valid by Marcian, Bishop Anatolius of

Constantinople, and subsequent Constantinopolitan clergy.389 However, despite these instances,

Leo’s influence was, nonetheless, important: “without Leo’s letter and the deliberate political

pressure of the Roman delegates the council would certainly have taken a different direction.”390

84

388Cf. the section, “III.A. The Summoning of the Council of Chalcedon: Influences of Leo and Imperial Officials.”389Canon 28 is discussed in detail in the sections, “III.B.ii. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: His Office - Bishop of Rome” and “III.B.iv Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: Eastern Imperial Interests.”390Schatz, 45.

III.B.IV. ACCEPTANCE OF LEO’S DOCTRINAL AND DISCIPLINARY

DEMANDS: EASTERN IMPERIAL INTERESTS

While the orthodoxy of Leo’s theology, his role as Bishop of Rome, and his capacities in

diplomacy and negotiation were important contributors to his doctrinal and disciplinary demands

having been met, there was another important cause. As noted above, eastern imperial

involvement was essential to the Council of Chalcedon having been called, as well as the

acceptance of Leo’s other demands prior to the council. So too were imperial interests, which

coincided with those of Leo, a key factor in his other demands being met at the council.391

That Pulcheria and Marcian intended to have Ephesus II overturned at the Council of

Chalcedon can be seen from the number of bishops who attended. The contemporary

understanding that God was present at councils and worked through those present was

foundational for the belief that the decrees of ecumenical councils were authoritatively binding;

it was understood that “it was divinity that prevailed.” One important means by which God was

believed to make known his will was through a large number of bishops in agreement. That is, a

conciliar decree was not considered correct and binding simply on a democratic principle, but

because “many = God.” It was largely for this reason that conciliar decrees could not be

overturned unless a subsequent council did such and it was agreed upon by more bishops than

the first council.392 Thus, the vast number of bishops summoned to Chalcedon by Marcian --

more than any other synod held up until that time -- needs to be understood in this context. The

85

391While scholars’ positions on which imperial officials were influential and to what degree is debated, the following all accept that imperial interests were an important factor that led to the results of the Council of Chalcedon: De Vries, “The Reasons,” 4; Burgess, 62-63, 65; Bevan, 429-430; Gonzalez, 376-377; Grillmeier, 529-530; Holum, 216; Michael Whitby, “An Unholy Crew? Bishops Behaving Badly at Church Councils,” in Chalcedon in Context, edited by Richard Price and Mary Whitby, 178-196 (Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 2009), 182.392MacMullen, 42.

council was intended, from the beginning, to overturn Ephesus II. However, this must be

qualified: imperial interests were represented and stressed, but they were not enforced.

A number of scholars argue that there was not only a very strong imperial presence at the

council but also weighty influence, which can even be discerned through an analysis of the

seating arrangement of the conciliar members. However, evidence to this end is limited and

conclusions that can result, problematic. This seating plan was as follows: the Roman legates

held the place of honour as first on the left side of the Gospels,393 followed by Anatolius,

Archbishop of Constantinople; Maximus, Archbishop of Antioch; Thalassius, Bishop of

Caesarea; Stephen, Bishop of Ephesus; and the other bishops of the Orient, Pontus, Asia, and

Thrace, Palestinian bishops excepted. On the right side were Dioscorus, Archbishop of

Alexandria, and Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem -- both of whom were accused of accepting

Eutyches’ monophysitism at Ephesus II, and the former who presided at that council --; Bishop

Quintillus, legate of Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica; Peter, Bishop of Corinth; and the other

bishops of Egypt, Illyricum, and Palestine.394

It has been argued that this arrangement divided conciliar members between those who

supported Leo’s Tome, who were on the left side of the imperial officials, and Dioscorus and his

supporters, who were on the right side.395 While this seating plan was devised by imperial

officials,396 and Marcian and Pulcheria did favour Leo, his Tome and positions against Dioscorus

and Ephesus II, it would be tenuous to conclude that this arrangement expressed this imperial

86

393Enrico, 764. While it is generally accepted that the position on the left side of the Gospels and imperial officials was the place of honour, there is some debate as to whether such was confined only to the first place on the left side (cf. Enrico, 764), or the entire left side (cf. MacMullen, 84). Surely, the former position is correct. See below.394Price and Gaddis 1:128-129, 1.4.395Those who hold this position include, Price and Gaddis 1:118-119; Sellers, 104; L’Huillier, 187; Samuel, 325; Bevan, 443-444; Steppa, 3.396Murphy, 27. Hughes, in partial contrast, argues that the Roman legates (i.e., not the emperor nor imperial officials) decided that Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, would be seated next to them: Hughes, 98.

agenda; that is, that those on the left, including the Roman legates in the place of honour, and

their cause was favoured by the Emperor, and those on the right were disfavoured.397 However,

consistent with this position, it has been noted that Dioscorus’ seating deviated from the

precedence of Ephesus II, at which he had held the presidency and place of honour, and Ephesus

I, at which the contemporary Archbishop of Alexandria, Cyril, had held both, as well. That

Dioscorus, as Archbishop of Alexandria, was not also seated in the place of honour at Chalcedon

has been argued to have been because Dioscorus “was lined up for condemnation.”398

While the left side of the imperial officials was the position of honour, however, the right

side did not reflect imperial dishonour.399 To this end, there is not any indication from the Acts

that Dioscorus felt slighted by his placement on the right side, even though, by being Bishop of

Alexandria, he held the third place of honour after Rome and Constantinople;400 nor did any

other bishops voice discontent with their seating. Moreover, precedence from the Council of

Nicaea illustrated that being seated on the right side did not have a particular meaning. After all,

at that council the Bishop of Antioch, Eustathius, was seated on the right side, but not only was

he not being accused of heterodox doctrine or praxis, but he “addressed the discourse to the

87

397While not explicitly stated by MacMullen, this is a natural conclusion of his arguments. Firstly, he recognizes the prima facie division between the supporters of Leo on the left and Dioscorus and his supporters on the right, with the majority being on the left. Finally, he contends that the entire left was the “side of favor and honor [emphasis added]” (MacMullen, 84), which would make the entire right side the de facto seating of the unfavoured and unhonoured. If it is accepted that the left and right sides were divided between these two factions, and that the outcome of the council in favour of Leo’s christology was pre-determined by imperial authorities, it is an implication of this position that this seating plan was indicative of imperial favour. Steppa argues that Dioscorus and his supporters “were obliged” to be seated on the right side, while the Roman legates, Anatolius and their supporters were seated on the left side: Steppa, 3. Those who hold that the council’s outcomes were pre-determined in favour of Leo’s christology include, De Vries, “The Reasons,” 4; Samuel, 324, 325, 335; Bevan, 428-430.398Price and Gaddis 1:119.399MacMullen’s position that the entire left side was the “side of favor and honor” (MacMullen, 84) is untenable because of the implication that the right side, then, was the de facto side of disfavour and dishonour. This would be a grave insult to conciliar members on that side, but no one protested it. In fact, while holding that the outcomes of the council were predetermined, De Vries argues that the seating plan conformed to formalities, and was a façade that made the pro-Eutychian and anti-Eutychian opponents appear to be equal and the outcome undecided: De Vries, “The Reasons,” 4.400Alexandria had accepted the decrees of Constantinople I, which gave the Constantinopolitan Church privileges and honour second to the Roman Church, and pushed the Alexandrian Church to third: Tanner, 32; Dvornik, 49.

emperor in the name of the whole synod[!]”401

Secondly, and similar to this last point, Quintillus, bishop of Heraclea and legate of

Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, was seated on the right side at the Council of Chalcedon

even though Anastasius was the vicar of Pope Leo in Illyricum, in good standing with him, and

free from accusations against him; he had not even attended Ephesus II.402 Moreover, this

church’s importance is exemplified by the fact that Quintillus was the sixth or seventh cleric

cited in the Acts after the Roman legates and other patriarchs present.403 His presence on the

right side, thus, makes the possibility that the seating plan reflected imperial interests moot.

Putting the legate of Leo’s vicar on the “side of Dioscorus” would have been a grave insult to

Leo, one of which was never recognized as having occurred. To the contrary, “thanks to the

careful preparation made by the Imperial Commissioners, the whole assembly had been seated

88

401Norello, 764.402Price and Gaddis, 1:128, 1.4; 1:28, fn. 99. Pope Leo praised Anastasius in October of 449 for not having attended Ephesus II: Wessel, 120 fn. 238. For information on the complicated ecclesiastical and political relationship between the Rome and Illyricum, cf. Wessel 114-121. MacMullen admits that he cannot account for the Ilyric bishops’ presence on the right side: MacMullen, 147 fn. 21. While Anastasius was in good standing with Leo, it is true that a number of bishops from Illyricum opposed Leo’s dyophysitism, and were miaphysites. At the fifth session, “The most devout bishops of Illyricum...” wanted the original draft of the dogmatic formula approved, which stated that Christ was ejk duvo fuvsewn: Price and Gaddis, 2:199-200, 5.25. Cf. Jenkins, 209 who argues that “Almost certainly, the draft used ‘out of’ [i.e., ejk]” in opposition to the Roman legates and Leo’s Tome. The bishops of Illyricum said: “Let those who dissent make themselves known. The dissenters are Nestorians. Let the dissenters go off to Rome” (Price and Gaddis, 2:199-200, 5.25). Interestingly, however, just as the Roman legates were absent, so too the bishops of Illyricum were “conspicuous by their absence” at the session at which Canon 28 was approved: Price and Gaddis 3:68.403James Skedros, “Civic and Ecclesiastical Identity in Christian Thessalonikē,” in From Roman to Early Christian Thessalonikē: Studies in Religion and Archaeology, edited by Laura Nasrallah, Charalambos Bakirtzis, and Steven J. Friesen, 245-262 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2010), 253. Skedros erroneously states that Quintillus was always listed seventh: Skedros, 253. Quintillus was the sixth cleric recorded in sessions 2, 4, 9. He was seventh at session 1 because he was preceded by Dioscorus of Alexandria; and seventh at the Session on Photius and Eutathius, and sessions 5-8, 11, 13-16 because he was preceded by Juvenal of Jerusalem. Quintillus was not recorded as present at session 3, while sessions 10 and 12 did not begin with a list of those in attendance, and the Session on Domnus of Antioch simply recorded the patriarchs present followed by “...and the rest of the holy council...” Cf. Session 1.1 in Price and Gaddis; 2.1 in Price and Gaddis 2:6; Session 4.1 in Price and Gaddis 2:121; Session on Photius and Eutathius 2; Session 5.1 in Price and Gaddis 2:195; Session 6.1 in Price and Gaddis 2:208; Session 7.1 in Price and Gaddis 2:246; Session 8.1 in Price and Gaddis 2:252; Session 9.1 in Price and Gaddis 2:259; Session on Domnus of Antioch 1 in Price and Gaddis 2:311; Session 11.2 in Price and Gaddis 3:4; Session 13.2 in Price and Gaddis 3:24; Session 14.2 in Price and Gaddis 3:36; Session 15.2 in Price and Gaddis 3:63; Session 16.1 in Price and Gaddis 3:73.

apparently without confusion or dispute over protocol.”404

It is also not evident that Dioscorus’ placing, which violated precedence from Ephesus I

and II, reflected his planned deposition and defrocking. It is clear that Marcian favoured Leo and

his positions as seen by his legates presiding and holding the place of honour in his stead.

However, it is a stretch to conclude from this that the council was pre-determined by Marcian to

condemn Dioscorus. Firstly, the holder of the place of honour at a council was decided at the

emperor’s prerogative: Theodosius had chosen Dioscorus at Ephesus II, and Marcian had chosen

Leo. Secondly, Dioscorus’ deposition was not suggested by the imperial officials, but by the

Roman legates, the former of whom first ensured that a trial was undertaken at the council,

which was thereafter repeated by the conciliar bishops without any imperial presence.405 Thus,

while there may have been rationales behind the bishops’ seating at Chalcedon, such was not due

to imperial favour, the Roman legates excepted.

In addition to the high attendance of bishops at the council, there was an unprecedented

number of imperial officials present at most of the proceedings. Specifically, whereas only one

imperial official had been present at Ephesus I,406 nineteen attended the first session, eighteen at

the second and fourth, and thirty-eight at the sixth. However, there were significantly fewer at

the other sessions, specifically, only three at all except for the third at which there were zero

89

404Murphy, 27.405For the first trial, cf. Price and Gaddis 1:129-364, 1.5-1.1068. For the second trial, cf. Price and Gaddis 2:41-110, 3.3-97. Both trials are discussed below in this section.406Bevan, 438-439.

present.407 Most of these imperial officials were former or current senators, consuls, patricians,

and prefects, and were present at the council as representatives of the senate.408

The reasons why Marcian decided to send a large number of prestigious representatives

to the council involved numerous factors, including the resolve to avoid disorder and violence. It

was likely for this reason that there were more present at the opening sessions “where disorder

was most likely to be expected.”409 Moreover, Marcian and the bishops will have recalled the

disorder that had occurred at both Ephesus I and Ephesus II, and wanted to avoid it happening

again.410 At the former, for instance, Theodosius II had sent an imperial official to ensure “order

and tranquility,” a goal that had failed; one person had clearly not been enough.411 The outcome

of Ephesus II eighteen years later would have been even more influential in this regard: it had

occurred more recently, involved bishops and other clerics involved at Chalcedon, and had been

more violent. Specifically, thereat Eutyches, Dioscorus and their allies exercised violence toward

their opponents. Eutyches had an aggressive personality: he was easily angered, often refused to

compromise in matters important to him, and demonized his opponents. He was also an

archimandrite and, thus, held influence over many monks. To this end, Eutyches utilized his

authority and, with the help of monks, attacked his critics and those who were allies with

Flavian.412 Dioscorus, too, was seemingly paranoid and had an “uncontrollable anger” which, it

90

407Price and Gaddis 1:41. The three imperial officials present for the majority of the sessions were, Anatolius, former patrician and contemporary magister militum, Palladius, praefectus sacrorum praetoriorum, and Vincomalus, magister sacrorum officiorum: Price and Gaddis 1:41; Sellers, 103, fn. 2. Many have failed to note that the sessions did not consistently have a high number of imperial officials present, which has led them to conclude that Marcian intended to impose his positions on the council: e.g., Bevan, “The Case of Nestorius,” 442-443; Samuel, 324.408Price and Gaddis 1:41; Sellers, 103, fn. 2.409Price and Gaddis 1:41.410Price and Gaddis 1:42. According to Price and Gaddis, “This very practical concern outweighed any qualms they might have felt about such a blatant intrusion of secular power into the sacred affairs of the church”: Price and Gaddis 1:42.411Kretschmar, 59.412Jenkins, 176-177.

has been hypothesized, may have been the result of a personality disorder.413 Regardless,

Dioscorus, like Eutyches, was willing to use intimidation and violence to achieve his goals. For

instance, when he traveled to preside at Ephesus II (449), he was accompanied by his

Alexandrian parabolani “who intervened at will, bullying and beating.”414 Dioscorus also

admitted to the council the Syrian archimandrite Barsaumas, who could be unscrupulously

hostile toward anyone he considered to have remotely Nestorian views, even though he was not a

bishop. At another point, a motion was made for Flavian to be deposed, which was followed by

violence and pressure. About 30 bishops signed the decree under duress. The bishops of the

Orient, Pontus, Asia, and Thrace later claimed that they were attacked and threatened with

deposition if they did not sign blank papers, which were later filled-out with that to which they

were supposedly agreeing. In order to avoid potential for violence akin to these events at

Ephesus II, Marcian ensured that influential imperial officials, as well as military forces, were

present.415

The presence of the imperial officials proved helpful to this end for there were heated

situations during the Council of Chalcedon during which they had to intervene. For example,

during the first session on October 8, Theodoret of Cyrus was granted a position among the

bishops by the commissioners -- as Leo had readmitted him to communion, and Marcian had

reversed Theodosius’ sentence that he could not leave his diocese and ordered him to participate

in the council. In response, Oriental bishops and others from Asia Minor greeted Theodoret,

while Egyptian bishops anathematizing him: “It was a storm that only the lay commissioners

could have controlled, with their guards in support,” the former of whom suggested that he sit in

91

413Jenkins, 184.414Jenkins, 183.415Jenkins, 188, 190, 203; Murphy, 9.

the nave, while retaining full rights as a conciliar bishop.416

Secondly, the aforementioned Anatolius, patrician and magister militum, led the imperial

commission,417 and de facto presided at the Council of Chalcedon, that is, decided on the agenda

and led discussion. This is clear from the fact that the imperial representatives were listed in the

Acts of the Council at each session prior to the bishops.418 Such imperial influence was in

tremendous contrast to the councils of Ephesus I and Ephesus II whereat the councils were

controlled predominantly by the conciliar bishops.419 It was in this way -- through his imperial

representatives -- that Marcian worked so that his goals would be, and were, met.420 However, it

is an exaggeration to contend that the imperial agenda was imposed on the conciliar bishops,

although they were influenced, strongly at times.421

Moreover, the bishops at Chalcedon must have felt relatively unintimidated by the

imperial officials having remembered or heard of the abuses at Ephesus II, where soldiers and

monk-supporters of Dioscorus forced bishops to sign the deposition of Flavian. That is, in

contrast to Ephesus II, the bishops at Chalcedon must have felt relatively secure and, thus, able

to make decisions despite imperial pressure.

92

416Hughes, 89.417Sellers, 103.418Frend, 242; Price and Gaddis, 41. While the imperial representatives presided over the proceedings in a technical sense, the Roman legates “...were recognized as holding formal presidency over the council”: Price and Gaddis 1:42.419Bevan, 438-439.420While they don’t all agree on Marcian’s goals for the Council of Chalcedon, many scholars agree that Marcian used his imperial representatives as a means to ensuring they were met, including Sellers, 103; Bevan, 438-439; Price and Gaddis 2:207.421That the imperial agenda was imposed on the bishops has been argued by De Vries, “The Reasons,” 4; cf. Burgess, 62-68; Bevan, 438-439, 443-444; Bevan and Gray, 657; Holum, 216. In contrast, Murphy argues that the imperial representatives did not impose on the bishops but, rather, simply ensured that Marcian’s “view-point was properly respected. In general, they ran the council, but in such a fashion as to disassociate themselves from the voting on ecclesiastical affairs or theological questions”: Murphy, 9. Emilianos of Meloa goes further, and contends that: “The role of the Byzantine Empire in the convocation and conduct of councils has been widely overestimated. In external matters like the ordering, organizing, and transporting of the participants, the initiative was indeed the emperor’s. But the emperor was not able to interfere with the doctrinal decisions and the prerogatives of the church”: Emilianos of Meloa, 363.

! The first instance during the council whereby imperial legates could have immediately

enforced Marcian’s position thereon pertained to the deposition of Dioscorus, the main architect

of Ephesus II.422 It has been argued that his deposition was planned before his trial at the Council

of Chalcedon,423 but this must be nuanced by a recognition that Marcian ensured order and

canonical legitimacy,424 and did not force the conciliar bishops to depose, although they were

certainly influenced to do such. Specifically, during the first session of the council, Paschasinus

informed the council that he and the other Roman legates had been instructed by Pope Leo to

ensure that Dioscorus was removed from the council, and threatened that they would leave to

Italy if this did not occur. The imperial officials, however, did not immediately agree with this

demand, first requiring the Roman legates to explain their charge against him, a request made

four times as the legates failed to make specific accusations. The imperial officials, then,

required Dioscorus to be seated apart from the bishops in the centre of the church on the grounds

that he could not be defendant and a judge. Thereafter, Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum issued a

statement, by order of Marcian, that contained the former’s accusations against Dioscorus due to

his actions at Ephesus II. In response, Dioscorus, and then Eusebius, both requested that the

minutes of Ephesus II be read, and they were although with numerous interruptions by bishops

who made further accusations of violence and intimidation at the council. Dioscorus argued that

he had co-chaired the council with other bishops and, thus, that he should not be accused alone.

While these other bishops initially argued that violence had been used against them to do so, they

later admitted some responsibility for Ephesus II’s proceedings. When the imperial officials

93

422Cf. Price and Gaddis 1:31-37, 38. By command of Marcian, Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, presented an accusation against Dioscorus due to offenses committed at Ephesus II, indicating that Marcian wanted Dioscorus deposed: Price and Gaddis 1:130, 1.14.423Price and Gaddis 1:119.424Price and Gaddis 1:40.

asked the council if Flavian had been orthodox in his statements at the Home Synod of

Constantinople (448), bishops affirmed that he had. Thereafter, Dioscorus’ supporters abandoned

their seats on the right side and moved over to the left, indicative of their new opposition to

Dioscorus and Ephesus II. When the minutes from Ephesus II had finished, Anatolius, the

patrician who chaired most of the sessions, was convinced that enough evidence had been

produced to prove the charge that the depositions of bishops Flavian of Constantinople and

Eusebius of Dorylaeum had been unjust. As a result, he unilaterally declared Dioscorus and five

other bishops involved at Ephesus II to be deposed from the episcopacy. While this required

Marcian’s approval,425 the absence of these six convicted bishops from the second session

indicates that Anatolius’ decree had immediate effect.426

During this trial, evidence was produced from the official Acts of Ephesus II and by

witnesses, and Dioscorus and other bishops had the opportunity to respond over the course of the

day-long trial.427 While, thus, the trial was largely prima facie fair, that Anatolius, and not the

bishops, decided the verdict was certainly an excessive use of imperial authority. However, after

the abuses of Ephesus II, Marcian understood the need for order, and canonical legitimacy of

conciliar proceedings.428 Perhaps for this reason, the depositions of the six bishops remained in

force at the third session only as suspensions;429 they were considered “provisional,” and

94

425Cf. Price and Gaddis 1:129-364, 1.5-1.1068. The five other bishops deposed, in addition to Dioscorus, were Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia in Isauria: Price and Gaddis 1:364, 1.1068.426Price and Gaddis 1:121.427Cf. Sellers, 104-108.428Price and Gaddis 1:40. Price and Gaddis argue: “Where Ephesus II emphasized the zealous condemnation of the enemies of true doctrine, Chalcedon offered moderation, reconciliation and consensus. The leaders of the council sought to convey an image of ordered legitimacy and procedural fairness in contrast to the violence of Ephesus II, which had allowed zeal against heresy to override canonical due process”: 1:40. Indeed, numerous statements are made by imperial officials to this end. For example, the latter stated at the Session on Photius and Eustathius: “It has pleased the most divine master of the world [i.e., Marcian] that the affairs of the most sacred bishops should proceed not according to divine rescripts [i.e., declarations of the emperor] or pragmatic sanctions but according to the canons enacted by the holy fathers”: Price and Gaddis 2:175, Session on Photius and Eustathius 11.429Price and Gaddis 2:36.

required the consent of the conciliar bishops.430 Further, the imperial officials were absent from

this session, indicative of this imperial policy of at least appearing transparent and legitimate by

minimizing its apparent influence. At this session, Dioscorus would only be judged by others in

the episcopacy.431

Thus, at the third session was a second trial of Dioscorus, which was presided over by the

Roman legate Paschasinus. After being summoned three times and refusing, he was tried in

absentia and accused by five plaintiffs -- specifically, Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and then

by four Alexandrians -- before other bishops referred to other offenses in their condemnations of

him.432 The total number of bishops who signed Dioscorus’ deposition for themselves or as

representatives was c. 265.433 Since there were c. 370 “council members, bishops or their

representatives,” it is most likely that the other c. 105 members who did not attend supported

Dioscorus but realized that the outcome of his trial was inevitable. After all, not only Marcian

sought his deposition but Leo did, as well, whose representative chaired the session.434 That

these conciliar members, bishops in particular, chose not to attend this session is significant.

While imperial policy surely influenced the outcome, the decision of such a large number of

bishops not to attend is indicative that Marcian’s policy of transparency was not entirely a

façade; bishops may have been influenced but were not forced to act contrary to their wills as

95

430Price and Gaddis 2:30.431Price and Gaddis 2:29.432Cf. Price and Gaddis 2:41-110, 3.3-3.97. Cf. Price and Gaddis 2:30-35 for an examination of the charges made against Dioscorus, and the lack of consensus thereon among the conciliar bishops present at session three.433Price and Gaddis: 37. For an explanation of how this figure was calculated given discrepancies in both the Greek and Latin Acts of the session, cf. Price and Gaddis 2:35-37.434Price and Gaddis 2:35-36.

they were at Ephesus II.435

A second major instance of imperial intervention involved christology. Specifically, at the

second session the imperial officials declared that Marcian wanted the council to define a new

dogmatic formula. To this end, Anatolius, the lay presider of most of the sessions, instructed the

council to form a committee to draft the new formula. The majority of bishops, however, were

firmly opposed to it; but, in direct violation of their decision, Anatolius had the committee

formed, anyway.436

This goal of Marcian’s was motivated by at least two factors. Firstly, as indicated by his

original choice for the council at Nicaea, Marcian sought glory and, thus, “[was] keen to see the

Council which...[he] convened attained as much fame as the first ecumenical Council [at Nicaea]

itself.”437 In order to accomplish this goal, especially since he had had to move the council from

Nicaea to Chalcedon, it was important that the council produce an official statement reminiscent

of the Nicene Creed that would honour Marcian and support the claim that he was “the new

Constantine.”438

Secondly, Marcian expressly wanted “an unambiguous definition of the true and orthodox

96

435The suspensions of the five other bishops -- i.e., Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius, Eustathius, and Basil -- were retracted at session four. Specifically, requests were made at this session to this end on the grounds that the five had signed Leo’s Tome. The imperial officials directed the question of whether they could be readmitted to Marcian who, thereafter, informed the council that they were to decide; and they chose to do so: Cf. Price and Gaddis 2:146-147, 4.11-4.18.436Cf. Price and Gaddis 2:10-11, 2.2-2.7. Price and Gaddis argue that the bishops were unanimous in their opposition to formulating a new dogmatic formula (Price and Gaddis 2:1). However, they later state say that “the great majority of the bishops” were in opposition (2:10, fn. 17). While it is uncertain, it seems probable that the Roman legates were not in opposition. After all, while other bishops individually voiced their opposition (cf. Price and Gaddis 2:10-11), none of the Roman legates did. Moreover, during the fifth session, the latter make clear their opposition to the draft dogmatic formula on the basis that Leo’s Tome was not clearly referenced (Price and Gaddis 2:197, 5.9). It seems quite possible, thus, that they supported a new formula in session two for the same perceived reason: to bring greater glory to Leo and the Roman Church. Price and Gaddis say that Anatolius “proposed” that this committee be formed. However, the Acts suggest that it was less a proposal than it was instruction. For an explanation of why the bishops were opposed to formulating a new dogmatic formula, cf. the section, “III.B.i. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: Apostolicity.”437Samuel, 324.438Jenkins, 210.

faith,”439 which expressly defined the Church’s christology; and the bishops had not

accomplished this by having produced a list of orthodox works. That an ambiguity remained is

clear from the debate that pursued over the distinction between ejk duvo fuvsewn and ejn duvo

fuvsesin, which indicated that these two phrases need not, but could, have different meanings.440

In fact, it is probable that some of the bishops preferred ejk duvo fuvsewn because, as in the case

of Dioscorus, it allowed for a monophysite interpretation of Christ’s natures after the

Incarnation.441

Thus, for at least these two reasons the imperial officials pressured the conciliar bishops

to formulate and approve a new dogmatic formula, which the vast majority of them opposed. At

the fifth session, Anatolius, the Bishop of Constantinople, asked the council if they approved of

the dogmatic formula that had been revealed to them the day prior, and with which he had been

significantly involved. All of the bishops, with the exception of the Roman legates and “some of

the Orientals,” likely Antiochenes, expressed their approval.442 After, the Roman legates

expressed their concern that the formula did not contain Leo’s Tome and that, if it was not

introduced into it, they would leave and hold a council in Italy.443 The imperial officials, in

response, made a series of proposals to convince the bishops to introduce into the dogmatic

formula explicit reference to Leo’s Tome all but the last of which were refused. In this way, it is

evident that the imperial officials exerted a considerable amount of pressure on the bishops, but

97

439Price and Gaddis 2:199, 5.22.440For the debate over these two phrases, cf. Price and Gaddis 2:197-200, 5.6-5.28. Dioscorus made a distinction between ejk duvo fuvsewn and ejn duvo fuvsesin, having refused to accept the latter: Price and Gaddis 2:198, 5.13; 1:190, 1.299. In contrast, “the most devout bishops” at session five indicated that they did not think that the two phrases significantly differed in meaning when they argued that the original dogmatic formula “has confirmed the letter [i.e., Leo’s Tome]”: Price and Gaddis 2:198, 5.20.441Cf. Price and Gaddis 2:198, 5.13-5.14.442Price and Gaddis 1:196-197, 5.2-5.7; Hughes, 92.443Price and Gaddis 2:197, 5.9.

did not force them.

Specifically, the imperial officials suggested that a new committee be formed to revise

the dogmatic creed; but the majority of bishops declined. The former, then, argued that if the

bishops accepted Leo’s christology, they should add it to the creed. The bishops affirmed that

they accepted it, but refused to add it to the the formula on the grounds that the draft already

“...confirmed the letter [i.e., Leo’s Tome].”444 The imperial officials thereafter sought direction

from Marcian who also instructed the bishops to summon another committee composed of

nineteen bishops from seven regions, including the Roman legates, as the imperial

representatives had first suggested. However, he thereafter offered an alternative: “Or, if you do

not approve this, each one of you is to make his faith known through his metropolitan...”

Thereafter still, Marcian clarified that the bishops could also reject this command, although he

issues an implicit threat: “If your holinesses do not want even this, you are to know that the

council will have to meet in the western parts, since your religiousness is unwilling to issue here

an unambiguous definition of the true and orthodox faith.”445 Marcian, thus, while clearly trying

to influence the decision of the bishops, makes it clear that his will for the council was not

binding on them; they retained autonomy. Moreover, a number of bishops did not feel forced to

heed to these commands of Marcian. According to the Acts, “the most devout bishops,” then

Cecropius, bishop of Sebastopolis, and finally the bishops of Illyricum, all called for the draft

dogmatic formula to be signed as it was, the first group threatening to leave if it was not, the

second calling for dissenters of it to leave, and the third calling dissenters Nestorians who should

“go off to Rome.”446 Many bishops, thus, were not intimidated by Marcian, and held to their

98

444Price and Gaddis 1:198, 5.20.445Price and Gaddis 2:199, 5.21, 5.22.446Price and Gaddis 2:199-200, 5.23-5.25.

positions. “All”447 the bishops agreed for the second committee to be established only after the

imperial officials argued that the dogmatic formula containing ejk duvo fuvsewn had been

acceptable to Dioscorus, who had been deposed.448 The committee returned with a dogmatic

formula that included reference to Leo’s Tome, specifically that Christ is “... acknowledged in

two natures [emphasis added];”449 and the council unanimously accepted it.450 Thus, “it was only

under constant pressure from the emperor Marcian that the Fathers of Chalcedon agreed to draw

up a new formula of belief [emphasis added].”451

A third instance of imperial involvement with regard to a significant matter at the Council

of Chalcedon involved Canon 28. As explained above, on the last day of the council, the Roman

legates protested that on the day prior this canon had been passed in their absence and that of the

imperial officials, and that it violated the canons of Nicaea, and the authority and dignity of the

Roman Church. After the Roman legates explained their protest, and the imperial officials had

investigated the matter, the latter declared the canon approved.452

The reason for the imperial officials’ decision on this matter, which was very significant

for the Roman legates and later Leo, is not evident. It has been argued that it was an important

goal of the eastern imperial throne to elevate the Constantinopolitan Church’s primacy and

authority.453 Further, it has been argued more specifically that Canon 28 was appealing to

Marcian because “[it] would permit direct interventions [by the Bishop of Constantinople] into

99

447Price and Gaddis 2:200, 5.29.448Price and Gaddis 2:200, 5.26-29.449Price and Gaddis 2:204, 5.34.450Price and Gaddis 2:205, 5.35.451Grillmeier, 543. Kretschmar argues the same as Grillmeier: Kretschmar, 60.452Cf. Price and Gaddis 3:73-3:91, 16.1-16.47. Note: 185 or more bishops were present when Canon 28 was passed: Martin, 433. For further details regarding Canon 28 and circumstances surrounding its passage, cf. the section, “III.B.ii. Acceptance of Leo’s Doctrinal and Disciplinary Demands: His Office - Bishop of Rome.”453Samuel, 342. Samuel contends that Pulcheria sought such: she “was not specially interested in the maintenance of orthodoxy or the exclusion of heresy, but the bringing into being of an ecclesiastical polity under the aegis of Constantinople, her imperial capital”: Samuel, 342.

ecclesiastical disputes throughout the eastern empire. Matters of discipline and doctrine could be

settled quickly in this way, without larger controversies.”454

There are problems with these arguments, however, which lead to the conclusion that

imperial interest in Canon 28 was very limited, if existent. Firstly, while Marcian, indeed, sought

to glorify himself, it is not evident that he sought to glorify the Church of Constantinople, even

though it was located at the eastern imperial city from which he reigned.455 Further, Marcian and

Pulcheria’s predecessors had been inconsistent in their support of eastern churches, sometimes

supporting the Constantinopolitan Church, and at other times other churches, especially the

Church of Alexandria. For instance, when John Chrysostom was bishop of Constantinople, the

imperial court favoured the bishop of Alexandria, Theophilus. However, for a while, Theodosius

II supported Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, over Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. Theodosius

II, thereafter, supported the bishop of Alexandria, Dioscorus, against the bishop of

Constantinople, Flavian.456 In the case under consideration, Marcian clearly did not favour the

Alexandrian Church but, rather, the Roman Church, whose bishop he had tried to appease.457

That said, from his correspondence after the council with Leo, it is clear that he accepted Canon

28 and its elevation of the Church of Constantinople.458 Thus, it is not being argued that Marcian

was adverse to the elevation of Constantinople, especially since he did not understand the Roman

Church’s qualms with such,459 but that there is no indication that he was motivated to ensure the

100

454Bevan, 476-477.455As noted above, Marcian wanted the Council of Chalcedon to be glorified like the Council of Nicaea with himself considered a second Constantine (Samuel, 324; Jenkins, 210). Likely to this end, he elevated the status of Chalcedon to that of a titular metropolitan see, a decision he said was “in honour of the holy martyr Euphemia and of your sacredness [i.e., the conciliar bishops]”: Price and Gaddis 2:243, 6.21.456Soloviev, 178-180.457Cf. the section, “III.A. The Summoning of the Council of Chalcedon: Influences of Leo and Imperial Officials.”458Dvornik, 52; Letter of Marcian to Pope Leo, Document 7 in Price and Gaddis 3:137.459Dvornik, 52.

passage of Canon 28, either. This conclusion is supported by the absence of the imperial officials

at the session at which this canon was originally passed.460 While it’s possible that they had been

aware that the contents of Canon 28 was going to be proposed and wanted to avoid being

entangled in controversy surrounding it, this seems unlikely based on how Marcian did not

understand the Roman church’s adversity toward the canon. More likely is that the imperial

officials were not present because it was an unofficial gathering the content of which they knew

not about or, if they did know, Marcian was uninterested in becoming involved. After all, if the

latter had been aware of Canon 28 and he wanted to ensure that it was passed by the bishops, he

surely would have ensured that imperial legates were present to guarantee such. Even on the

following day when the Roman legates made their protest, there were only three imperial

officials present who were not even aware of whether minutes had been kept at the unofficial

session.461 Again, if Marcian had a vested interest in Canon 28, surely more officials would have

been present, and they would have been prepared with the minutes.

Moreover, other reasons can be understood to have motivated the imperial officials to

decide in favour of Canon 28. Specifically, after Paschasinus argued that it violated the canons of

Nicaea, and declared that the Roman legates were charged by Leo to ensure this did not happen,

the imperial officials had Canon 28, Canon six of Nicaea, and Canon three of Constantinople

read out. They, thereafter, asked if any bishops had been forced to vote in favour of the canon,

and they all said no. Thus, the majority of the conciliar bishops present had given their assent to

the canon. Moreover, the imperial officials asked for and heard the bishops provide a rationale

for their decision: Canon 28 confirmed Canon three of Constantinople, as well as established

101

460Price and Gaddis 3:75, 16.4, 16.6.461Price and Gaddis 3:71, 16.1. With regard to the unofficial session, the imperial officials stated, “If there are minutes of the proceedings after our departure, let them be read [emphasis added]”: Price and Gaddis 3:75, 16.5.

practices.462 In this regard, while Leo later contended that he had not been informed of this

canon, Euesbius of Dorylaeum told the council that he had informed Leo of it when he was in

Rome as “a refugee,” and that Leo had agreed to it.463 That is, the imperial officials understood

Canon 28 to be a confirmation of Canon three of Constantinople with which, it was contended,

Leo had agreed. The imperial officials’ skepticism with the Roman legates’ protest may have

been reenforced by the fact that the place of honour after the Roman legates at the Council of

Chalcedon had been given to Anatolius. If Paschasinus had granted him this honour, it implied

that the Roman Church understood Constantinople to be second to it.464 Therefore, the imperial

officials had good reason to accept Canon 28 as passed: the majority of bishops present had

willingly agreed to it; it did not affect Rome’s primacy of honour; and there was evidence that

Leo accepted Constantinople as second in honour, already. This decision, thus, was not due to

imperial interests, but because the evidence suggested that protocol had been followed and, thus,

that the council had made a valid decision.

102

462Price and Gaddis 3:74-89, 16.4-16.34; Hughes, 97-98. Numerous other motivations have been discussed by scholars. On Canon 28 being anti-Alexandrian, cf. Daley, 537; Frend, 244; Dvornik, 48-51. On Canon 28 limiting the authority of Constantinople, cf. Martin 435ff.; L’Huillier, 268-270. On bishops supporting Canon 28 due to patronage of the Church of Constantinople, cf. Daley, 543-544.463Hughes, 98; Price and Gaddis 3:89, 16.31.464Hughes, 98.

CONCLUSION

The Council of Chalcedon concluded on November 1, 451 and, with the exception of the

dispute over Canon 28, was a major triumph for Leo. His doctrinal and disciplinary demands

were accepted by an ecumenical council of the universal Church, and the dyophysite doctrine

espoused in his Tome, in particular, were and continue to be accepted by the vast majority of

Christians. These major effects on the Christian Faith and history were, thus, due in large part to

the Roman bishop whose work in the Church merited him the epithet “the Great” by posterity. As

demonstrated in this thesis, Leo’s demands were met due to four major and interrelated reasons.

The conciliar bishops recognized that Leo’s Tome was consistent with the christology taught in

the Christian Scriptures and espoused by the Fathers, especially Cyril of Alexandria. Other

factors accompanied this acknowledgement of apostolicity, moreover, especially a recognition

that, due to his role as Bishop of Rome and successor of the Apostle Peter, Leo’s doctrinal and

disciplinary positions held a high degree of authority and deserved an assumption of validity.

Further, this was assisted by Leo’s conciliatory approach and capacity as a diplomat to negotiate

and persuade influential persons to his cause, especially the eastern Emperor Marcian and

Empress Pulcheria. It was not solely Leo’s influential episcopacy or capacities, however, that

resulted in the passionate cooperation of the imperial court. They, too, had their own motivations:

personal, especially their agreement with dyophysitism out of personal piety and conviction, but

also political determination to obtain western imperial support and secure the stability of their

empire. It was due to these incentives that the imperial court invested its time and resources, and

placed significant influence on the bishops and conciliar proceedings, which contributed greatly

103

to outcomes in imperial favour. This should not be overstated, however: strong influence does

not equate imposition.

While the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon were received well by a majority within

the Church, a substantial minority refused to accept them, including the majority within the

patriarchate of Alexandria, approximately half of the patriarchate of Antioch, and the Armenian

and Ethiopian churches. The East Syrian church of Persia was generally negative, as well.465

Thus, while Marcian had written to Leo that he wanted the council so that, “...perfect peace

should be established among all the bishops of the catholic faith...,”466 it is clear that “...this

purpose was not achieved.”467

A reasonable question is whether or not this strong negative response was or could have

been expected by the eastern imperial court. While it would not have been possible to anticipate

such in its entirety, as the council progressed, Marcian, who was informed of the proceedings

throughout, surely began to understand what would happen. Indeed, many bishops who had sided

with Eutyches and Dioscorus at Ephesus II changed their positions, which prima facie brought a

firmer religious unity to Christendom. Also, the Chalcedonian dogmatic formula was highly

Cyrillian in content and anti-Nestorian,468 which may have been anticipated as an appeasement to

104

465De Vries, “The Reasons,” 3. Bishop Julian of Kos reported to Leo that Chalcedonian decrees were rejected by many in the East, especially Palestinian monks who had forced Juvenal into exile in Constantinople. His bishopric was replaced by the anti-Chalcedonian Theodosius, and other bishops who had agreed to Chalcedon were also deposed and replaced with other anti-Chalcedonians. In 453, Juvenal retrieved his bishopric only with the assistance of imperial force, which may have involved the killing of monks who refused to hold communion with him: Steppa, xv, 9-10. For a detailed study of the Anti-Chalcedonians, cf. Steppa, John Rufus and the World Vision. Also cf. De Vries, “The Reasons.”466Letter from Marcian to Leo from September 450, Document 1 in Price and Gaddis 1:92.467De Vries, “The Reasons,” 3.468For instance, in its dogmatic formula, the council clearly expressed beliefs contrary to Nestorianism, including making reference to the Virgin Mary as “Theotokos,” and expressing belief in Christ, “...acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation (the difference of the natures being in no way destroyed by the union, but rather the distinctive character of each nature being preserved and coming together into one person and one hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, Only-begotten, God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ [emphasis added]”: Price and Gaddis 2:204, 5.34.

Alexandrians, in part. However, it should have been anticipated that Egyptians would have been

greatly upset. After all, their patriarch, Dioscorus, was deposed, and monophysitism rejected,

which was widely accepted in Egypt and Syria, “...a thought world in which even the slightest

concession to error in such essential matters was a betrayal of the whole substance of Christian

truth.”469 Finally, the Alexandrian Church’s subordination to third in honour after Constantinople

was reenforced by Canon 28. The Council of Chalcedon was, thus, in many ways an anti-

Alexandrian council, and a backlash surely was anticipated, albeit probably not to the degree that

it occurred.470 Given this likelihood, genuine religious unity throughout the empire, while a

concern, was a lesser priority for Marcian; and Leo’s doctrinal and disciplinary demands were

met at its expense.

While the Council of Chalcedon, thus, brought about a renewed unity in the Christian

East and West, further divisions resulted that have remained. While a future resolution and

reunification of the Church will be complex, a necessary component will be continued study to

bring about an increase in understanding of this council, its circumstances, and outcomes.

Academic pursuits to this end, thus, are not ends in themselves, but hopeful opportunities.

105

469Jenkins, 217-218.470Steppa argues that the causes for the rejection of Chalcedonic christology in the Eastern Empire, especially Egypt and Syria, are unclear: “While a wide range of motives have been suggested --founded in theology, semantics, asceticism, spirituality, ecclesiastical politics and even nationalism -- no scholar has yet been able to present a fully satisfying explanation, outlining the historical and ideological reasons behind the rise of the so-called ‘monophysite movement”: Steppa, 165.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Cyprian of Carthage. The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage Vol. 3. Translated by G.W. Clarke. Ancient Christian Writers 46. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1986.Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters. Edited and translated by Lionel R. Wickham. New York: Oxford UP, 1983.Jurgens, William A. Faith of the Early Fathers. Vol. 1. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970.Leo the Great. “The Letters and Sermons of Leo the Great.” In Leo the Great. Gregory the Great Pt. 1: Select Works and Letters, 1-205. Translated by Charles Lett Feltoe. Vol. 12. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series. Edited by Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace. Oxford: James Parker and Company, 1895.Migne, J.-P. Patrologiae cursus completus (series Graeca) (MPG) 26, Paris: Migne, 1857-1866: 1029-1048.Neil, Bronwen. Leo the Great. The Early Church Fathers. Edited by Carol Harrison. New York: Routledge, 2009.Price, Richard, and Michael Gaddis, eds. and trans. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Vol. 1-3. Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 2005.Schwartz, E., ed. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Vol. 1-4. Berlin, 1914.Tanner, Norman P., ed. and trans. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Vol. 1. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1990.

Secondary Sources

Allen, Pauline, ed. and trans. Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and Other Documents. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009.Barclift, Philip L. “The Shifting Tones of Pope Leo the Great’s Christological Vocabulary.” Church History 66.2 (1997): 221-239.Bell, David N. “The Council of Chalcedon.” In A Cloud of Witnesses: An Introduction to the Development of Christian Doctrine to AD 500. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 2007.Bellitto, Christopher M. The General Councils: A History of the Twenty-One General Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 2002.Bevan, George A. “The Case of Nestorius: Ecclesiastical Politics in the East, 428-451 CE.” PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2005.Bevan, George A., and Patrick T. R. Gray. “The Trial of Eutyches: A New Interpretation.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 101/102 (2008): 617-657.Burgess, Richard W. “The Accession of Marcian in Light of Chalcedonian Apologetic and Monophysite Polemic.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 86/87 (1993/4): 47-68. Chadwick, Henry. “The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: a Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon,” JTS 6 (1955):17-34.

106

Daley, Brian E. “Position and Patronage in the Early Church: The Original Meaning of ‘Primacy of Honour.’” Journal of Theological Studies 44.2 (1993): 529-53.De Vries, Wilhelm. “Ecumenical Councils and the Ministry of Peter”. In Four Vienna Consultations, edited by the Ecumenical Foundation, Pro Oriente. 159-174. Vienna: Ecumenical Foundation, Pro Oriente, 1988.———. “The Reasons for the Rejection of the Council of Chalcedon by the Oriental Orthodox Churches.” In Christ in East and West. Edited by Paul R. Fries and Tiran Nersoyan, 3-13. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987.———. Orient et Occident. Les Structures ecclésiales vues dans l’histoire des sept premiers conciles oecuméniques. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1974.Drobner, Hubertus. “Theological Controversies of the Fifth Century: III. Leo the Great.” In The Fathers of the Church” A Comprehensive Introduction, translated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann. 478-489. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.Dvornik, Francis. “The Principle of Accommodation” and “The Principle of Apostolicity.” In Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, 27-58. New York: Fordham University Press, 1966.Emilianos of Meloa. “The Nature and Character of Ecumenical Councils According to the Orthodox Church.” In The Councils of the Church: History and Analysis, edited by Hans Jochen Margull. Translated by Walter F. Bense, 338-369. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.Eno, Robert B. “Speak for Yourself: the Roman View” and “Two Styles of Leadership: Leo and Gelasius.” In The Rise of the Papacy, 87-129. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier Inc., 1990.Evans, G. R. The Church and the Churches: Toward an Ecumenical Ecclesiology. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.Fortescue, Adrian. The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451. 4th ed., edited by Alcuin Reid. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008.Frend, W. H. C. “Leo and Chalcedon 440-61.” In The Early Church, 237-246. Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971.Fuellenbach, John. Ecclesiastical Office and the Primacy of Rome: An Evaluation of Recent Theological Discussion of First Clement. Washington: Catholic University of America, 1980.Gibbons, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York, 1960.González, Justo L. “The Nestorian Controversy and the Council of Ephesus” and “The Council of Chalcedon.” In A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon. Vol. 1, 353-380. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1993.Grillmeier, Aloys. “From Ephesus to Chalcedon,” and “The Council of Chalcedon”. In Christ in Christian Tradition. Volume One: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), translated by John Bowden. 488-557. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975.Hastings, Adrian. “The Papacy and Rome’s Civil Greatness.” The Downside Review 75 (1957): 359-382.Hess, Hamilton. The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica. New York: Oxford UP, 2005.Holum, Kenneth G. Theodosian Empresses. Berkeley: California UP, 1982.Hughes, John Jay. Pontiffs: Popes Who Shaped History. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1994.

107

Hughes, Philip. “The General Council of Chalcedon, 451.” In The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870, 75-102. Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1964.Jalland, T. G. The Church and the Papacy: An Historical Study. London: S.P.C.K., 1946.Jenkins, Philip. “Chalcedon.” In Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years, 199-226. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010.Jenks, Gregory Charles. The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth. New York: De Gruyter, 1991.Kelly, J. N. D. “Leo I, St.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, 43-45. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005.Krautheimer, Richard. Three Christian Capitals: Topography and Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.Lebon, Joseph. Le monophysisme sévérien: Étude historique, litteraire et théologique sur la résistance monophysite au concile de Chalcédoine jusqu'à la constitution de l'église jacobite. Louvain: 1909.L’Huillier, Peter. “The Council of Chalcedon.” In The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, 181-328. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996.Kretschmar, Georg. “The Councils of the Ancient Church.” In The Councils of the Church: History and Analysis, edited by Hans Jochen Margull. Translated by Walter F. Bense, 1-81. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.MacMullen, Ramsay. Voting about God in Early Church Councils. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2006.Martin, Thomas Owen. “The Twenty-Eighth Canon of Chalcedon: A Background Note.” In Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Vol. 2, edited by Aloys Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht, 433-458. Wurzburg, Germany: Echter-Verlag, 1953.McCue, J. F. “The Roman Primacy in the Second Century and the Problem of the Development of Dogma.” Theological Studies 25 (1964): 161-196. McGuckin, John Anthony. Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004.Millar, Fergus. A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief Under Theodosius II (408-450). Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Miller, J. Michael. The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development, and Mission of the

Papacy. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1995.Murphy, F.X. Peter Speaks Through Leo. Washington: Catholic University of America Press,

1952.Need, Stephen W. Human Language and Knowledge in the Light of Chalcedon. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1996.Newman, John Henry. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. London: James Toovey, 1845.Nichols, Aidan. Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism. Collegeville, MI: The Liturgical Press, 1992.

108

Norello, Enrico. “The Authority Attributed to the Early Church in the Centuries of Magdeburg and in the Ecclesiastical Annals of Caesar Baronius.” In The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists. Vol. 1. Edited by Irena Backus, 745-774. Leiden: Brill, 1997.Norris, Frederick W. s.v. “Chalcedon, Chalcedonian Creed.” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd Ed. Edited by Everett Ferguson, 233-234. New York: Routledge, 1999.Pásztori-Kupán, István. The Early Church Fathers: Theodoret of Cyrus. New York: Routledge, 2006.Pelikan, Jaroslav. “The Challenge of the Latin Church.” In The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Volume 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), 146-198. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974.Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. Vol. 1. Notre Dame: Christian Classics, 1983.Rahner, Hugo. Church and State in Early Christianity, translated by Leo Donald Davis. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992.Ray, Stephen K. Upon this Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999.Ruddy, Christopher. The Local Church: Tillard and the Future of Catholic Ecclesiology. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2006.Samuel, V. C. “Proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon and its Historical Problems.” The Ecumenical Review 22.4 (1970): 321-347.Schatz, Klaus. Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present. Translated by John A. Otto and Linda A. Maloney. Collegeville, MI: The Liturgical Press, 1996.Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon: A Historical and Doctrinal Survey. London: S.P.C.K., 1953.Skedros, James. “Civic and Ecclesiastical Identity in Christian Thessalonikē.” In From Roman to Early Christian Thessalonikē: Studies in Religion and Archaeology, edited by Laura Nasrallah, Charalambos Bakirtzis, and Steven J. Friesen. 245-262. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2010.Soloviev, Vladimir. “St. Leo the Great on the Primacy,” “St. Leo the Great on Papal Authority,” “The Approval of Leo’s Ideas by the Greek Fathers,” and “The Council of Chalcedon.” In The Russian Church and the Papacy, edited by Ray Ryland and translated by Herbert Rees. 163-190. San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2001.Steppa, Jan-Eric. John Rufus and the World Vision of Anti-Chalcedonian Culture. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2002.Studer, Basil. “Italian Writers Until Pope Leo the Great.” In Patrology Vol. IV: The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature From the Council of Nicea to the Council of Chalcedon, edited by Angelo Di Berardino and translated by Placid Solari. 564-612. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, Inc., 1988.Sullivan, Francis A. From Apostles to Bishops: the Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church. New York: The Newman Press, 2001.———. Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.

109

Tillard, J. M. R. L'Eglise locale: Ecclesiologie de communion et catholicite. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1995.Twomey, Vincent. Apostolikos Thronos: The Primacy of Rome as Reflected in the Church History of Eusebius and the Historico-Apologetic Writings of St. Athanasius the Great. Münster: Aschendorff, 1982.Ullmann, Walter. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power. London: Methuen, 1965. ———. “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy.” Journal of Theological Studies 11.1 (April 1960): 25-51.———. s.v. “Papacy: 1. Early Period. 2. Medieval Period.” New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. New York: Gale, 2003.———. A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. London: Routledge, 2003.Van Loon, Hans. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Boston: Brill, 2009.Wessel, Susan. Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome. Boston: Brill, 2008.Whitby, Michael. “An Unholy Crew? Bishops Behaving Badly at Church Councils.” In Chalcedon in Context. Edited by Richard Price and Mary Whitby, 178-196. Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 2009.Wickham, Lionel R. s.v. “Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 375-444).” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd Ed. Edited by Everett Ferguson, 310-312. New York: Routledge, 1999.

110