- Oct 15, 2008
- 19,476
- 7,487
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
So recently I’ve been fascinated with Canon 28 of Chalcedon. It seems like everyone has their own version of history as to how this went down and what the final result was? Some say because Pope Leo refused to sign off on it, it died on the vine. Some say the Orthodox Church went on and passed it as canon. Some say all patriarchs had to unanimously agree on it to pass, others say a majority was all that was needed. I read a Catholic defense of why Canon 28 was “struck down.” I’d like to hear people’s (especially @ArmyMatt Father Matthew)’s take on it. Here’s the argument…
Pope Leo the 1strefused to agree to this very canon and ordered it to be struck from the Council documents.
As a result Bishop Anatolius, pleading the mercy of the Pope, stated the following:
“As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most revered clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most revered priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts if pride and covetousness. (Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132)
Some points to consider are the following:
Pope Leo the 1strefused to agree to this very canon and ordered it to be struck from the Council documents.
As a result Bishop Anatolius, pleading the mercy of the Pope, stated the following:
“As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most revered clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most revered priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts if pride and covetousness. (Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132)
Some points to consider are the following:
- If all of the Patriarchs of the Church were equal in regards to authority, it would not be necessary for the Patriarch of Constantinople to both apologize for offending the Pope and even mention that the canon was reserved for his authority to confirm.
- If all of the patriarchs were equal, why would there be a necessity to be equal to Rome alone rather than Alexandria or Antioch? Is it because this is the very See in which Peter and Paul died for, with Peter being the earthly head?
