Canon 28 of Chalcedon Question

[ironchapman]

I've been doing some reading lately, and a question arose in my mind about the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon.

Basically, I suppose my question is: Is it valid? (Or perhaps, "How is it valid?")

I know Pope Leo rejected it and so did the papal representatives at the council. This sort of makes it seem like the churches of the East trying to bolster themselves, especially since it is only the Eastern sees of the church that accepted it as valid. As a sort of sub-question here: did Leo have the power to annul (as some things I've read put it)?

I have also read that Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople that called the council basically recanted it in a letter to Leo, and that at least some Greek historians referred to only 27 canons of the council in the centuries after it.

I am curious and having a hard time finding an answer, though I am sure one exists.

[ironchapman]

I should also point out that in my reading, I have seen that Canon 3 on the First Council of Constantinople was never submitted to Rome, either. Furthermore, the Catholic council after the schism that confirmed Constantinople's place as second in importance was held while the Catholic church had Patriarchs of their own in the four Eastern Sees thanks to the results of the 4th Crusade.

So how can Constantinople claim to be second in rank to Rome given all of this (and what was in my original post)? Does this diminish Constantinople's claims to be the second in rank after Rome, and does this diminish in any way the legitimacy of the Eastern Orthodox claims about the Great Schism?

I'm looking for answers here not because I've found bad answers elsewhere but because the information I've found from Orthodox sources across the internet is rather fragmented (and in that respect, insufficient) while the sources from the Catholic side are quite voluminous. This seems to be a recurring problem with my research and reading. Be nice if you guys had an Orthodox equivalent of the Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia.

[JamesRottnek]

Do you mind posting the canon in question?

[LBK]

There are many canons, including some of the canons from the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, which pre-schism Rome never accepted, or, only partially ratified after a few centuries.

A good example of this are the canons of the Quinisext Council of 672; of particular relevance is Rome's failure to implement Canon 82, which is the cornerstone canon of iconography. This canon decrees that Jesus Christ is not to be portrayed in prefigurative or symbolic form, such as a lamb, but, in recognition and proclamation of the full incarnation and revelation of God, Christ is to be depicted in icons as a Divine Man or Child.

The development of western European religious art subsequently took a very different path to that of Orthodoxy and her iconography a couple of centuries before the Great Schism.

[ironchapman]

So perhaps, then, it could be said that Rome and its church were in error in not accepting the canons you mentioned or the ones I am discussing, especially since Orthodox reject the notion of papal infallibility.

There are many canons, including some of the canons from the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, which pre-schism Rome never accepted, or, only partially ratified after a few centuries.

A good example of this are the canons of the Quinisext Council of 672; of particular relevance is Rome's failure to implement Canon 82, which is the cornerstone canon of iconography. This canon decrees that Jesus Christ is not to be portrayed in prefigurative or symbolic form, such as a lamb, but, in recognition and proclamation of the full incarnation and revelation of God, Christ is to be depicted in icons as a Divine Man or Child.

The development of western European religious art subsequently took a very different path to that of Orthodoxy and her iconography a couple of centuries before the Great Schism.

[witega]

No, Rome never had the power to annul the decisions of a council. At various times they tried to assert such a power, but never successfully until after the schism. The practical aspects of canon 4.28 (the incorporation of the provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace into the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Constantinople taking appeals from other churches) went into effect despite St. Leo's objection. The part about Constantinople being 2nd in rank was already in effect since Constantinople I (and was not part of what St. Leo objected to in the canon, see below).

Constantinople I was never submitted to Rome because it was not originally intended to be an Ecumenical Council (i.e., of the whole Church). It was originally called as a regional council (though the region embraced all the Eastern Empire). It came to be recognized as a generally authoritative council based on its clear success at proclaiming the Orthodox Catholic faith, a recognition that was formalized at Ephesus, the next official Ecumenical Council. As a council only of the East, Constantinople I had authority to move Constantinople to 2nd in honor because the former 2nd and 3rd (Alexandria and Antioch) which were being displaced were both represented.

That St. Leo accepted Constantinople I, canon 3 is evidenced by the fact that one of the charges brought against Patriarch Dioscorus at Chalcedon by Leo's representatives was that at Ephesus II (which Patriarch Dioscorus chaired), St. Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople had only been given the 5th place.

(Whether a council has more authority than the Roman pontiff or the Roman pope has some authority higher than a council is one of the fundamental divides between Orthodoxy and Rome. Thus any information you find on the question coming from either side is going to be colored by that basic assumption. I would simply point out that while there are plenty of example like St. Leo and canon 28--where Rome disagreed with someone, saint or heretic, group or individual--and there doesn't seem to be a single instance in the first six or seven centuries of any individual accepting that Rome had an authority which meant they better change their position to get into agreement with it. And, in the East, I've yet to find an example in the whole of the first millenium).

[Irish Hermit]

No, Rome never had the power to annul the decisions of a council.

Agreed, but when one of the great patriarchates/churches, and in this instance the patriarchate/church acknowledged by all as the church holding first rank, refuses to accept particular canons, then they cannot be said to be promulgated in accord with the essential conciliar principles of the Church and its governance.  They become at best local canons accepted by some of the Local Churches.

[ironchapman]

No, Rome never had the power to annul the decisions of a council.

Agreed, but when one of the great patriarchates/churches, and in this instance the patriarchate/church acknowledged by all as the church holding first rank, refuses to accept particular canons, then they cannot be said to be promulgated in accord with the essential conciliar principles of the Church and its governance.  They become at best local canons accepted by some of the Local Churches.

And, as I recall reading as well, Pope Leo's own priests & bishops didn't listen to his objections, as he complained to the Empress of the Byzantines later.

This entire incident could be seen as a vindication of the Orthodox perspective that disciplinary canons did not need to be followed in the same way as doctrinal ones, since Eastern Orthodox consider him a saint and not a heretic even with his opinions on this.

[LBK]

disciplinary canons did not need to be followed in the same way as doctrinal ones,

True enough, but Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council is an example of a doctrinal canon, which Rome has ignored to this day. There may well be other canons Rome does not subscribe to which are doctrinal, not disciplinary. And, of course, the biggie: Rome's violation of the canon forbidding any alteration to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, by inserting the filioque.

[ironchapman]

disciplinary canons did not need to be followed in the same way as doctrinal ones,

True enough, but Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council is an example of a doctrinal canon, which Rome has ignored to this day. There may well be other canons Rome does not subscribe to which are doctrinal, not disciplinary. And, of course, the biggie: Rome's violation of the canon forbidding any alteration to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, by inserting the filioque.

Indeed, and that violation that led to the filioque is something that I have really been alarmed by as I've begun looking into Orthodoxy. I've also noticed that what Catholic apologists (who comprise the volume of arguments on these matters on the internet, it seems) say about these councils and what actually happened are at times different things.

[Aindriú]

disciplinary canons did not need to be followed in the same way as doctrinal ones,

True enough, but Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council is an example of a doctrinal canon, which Rome has ignored to this day. There may well be other canons Rome does not subscribe to which are doctrinal, not disciplinary. And, of course, the biggie: Rome's violation of the canon forbidding any alteration to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, by inserting the filioque.

Indeed, and that violation that led to the filioque is something that I have really been alarmed by as I've begun looking into Orthodoxy. I've also noticed that what Catholic apologists (who comprise the volume of arguments on these matters on the internet, it seems) say about these councils and what actually happened are at times different things.

That canon doesn't forbid altering the creed; It forbids altering the faith of the creed. The filioque is also much older than the 11th century, a topic which is hotly debated in other threads.

[Rdunbar123]

Am i mistaken? hasnt the Pope Benedict XVI recognized the creed without the Filioque as the norm? I heard this but forget the source

[ialmisry]

I should also point out that in my reading, I have seen that Canon 3 on the First Council of Constantinople was never submitted to Rome either.

No, Rome claimed that when it objected to Chalcedon canon 28 (which is based on c. 3 of Constantinople II).  As the Acts show, the legates of Rome objected when the Acts of Pope Dioscoros at Ephesus II were read out, asking why EP St. Flavian was not given his place before Alexandria and Antioch, i.e. according to c. 3, but after them.

Furthermore, the Catholic council after the schism that confirmed Constantinople's place as second in importance was held while the Catholic church had Patriarchs of their own in the four Eastern Sees thanks to the results of the 4th Crusade.

The Vatican's council after the schism wasn't Catholic, and the Catholic Church that confesses the Orthodox Faith had Patriarchs of her own in the four Eastern Sees from the beginning.

Pope St. Leo whinned that even his own suffragans followed canon 28.

So how can Constantinople claim to be second in rank to Rome given all of this (and what was in my original post)? Does this diminish Constantinople's claims to be the second in rank after Rome, and does this diminish in any way the legitimacy of the Eastern Orthodox claims about the Great Schism?

Because the Church in Ecumenical Council said so, and although under protest, Rome obeyed.
No.
Absolutely not.

I'm looking for answers here not because I've found bad answers elsewhere but because the information I've found from Orthodox sources across the internet is rather fragmented (and in that respect, insufficient) while the sources from the Catholic side are quite voluminous.

LOL. That tends to happen when you make it up.

One problem is that the apologists for the Vatican project their concept of the papacy onto the ecumenical patriarchate, e.g. defining Orthodoxy as communion with the EP, as the Vatican defines "Catholic unity" as communion with the pope of Rome.  Orthodoxy, however, is not so defined.  Even if the EP was in reality still the suffragan of Heracleia and in the patriarchate of Rome, it wouldn't change anything about the Schism: the filioque is still heresy and the pope of Rome still has no jurisdiction over the other patriarchs.

This seems to be a recurring problem with my research and reading. Be nice if you guys had an Orthodox equivalent of the Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia.

There is one, but it's in Greek and AFAIK not online.

[ialmisry]

disciplinary canons did not need to be followed in the same way as doctrinal ones,

True enough, but Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council is an example of a doctrinal canon, which Rome has ignored to this day. There may well be other canons Rome does not subscribe to which are doctrinal, not disciplinary. And, of course, the biggie: Rome's violation of the canon forbidding any alteration to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, by inserting the filioque.

Indeed, and that violation that led to the filioque is something that I have really been alarmed by as I've begun looking into Orthodoxy. I've also noticed that what Catholic apologists (who comprise the volume of arguments on these matters on the internet, it seems) say about these councils and what actually happened are at times different things.

That canon doesn't forbid altering the creed; It forbids altering the faith of the creed.

And filioque alters the faith of the creed, something even Rome agreed to at Constantinople III.

The filioque is also much older than the 11th century

So is Arianism.

a topic which is hotly debated in other threads.

indeed!

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

No, Rome never had the power to annul the decisions of a council.

Agreed, but when one of the great patriarchates/churches, and in this instance the patriarchate/church acknowledged by all as the church holding first rank, refuses to accept particular canons, then they cannot be said to be promulgated in accord with the essential conciliar principles of the Church and its governance.  They become at best local canons accepted by some of the Local Churches.

That would be one of the text book arguments the Orientals held against the Chalcedon Council

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Irish Hermit]

disciplinary canons did not need to be followed in the same way as doctrinal ones,

True enough, but Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council is an example of a doctrinal canon, which Rome has ignored to this day.

Canon 82 is included in a bunch of disciplinary canons.

1. it is very doubtful if a canon of this nature can be seen as quintessentially doctrinal

2.  It was never accepted or ratified by the universal Church so it cannot bind the Church universally

3.  If this canon and others on iconography are doctrinal, the Russian Church is in heresy. Its iconographers/mocks create icons of the canonically forbidden OT Trinity.  It is in nearly every Russian Church.  Russian bishops, monks and laymen venerate it all over Russia.


Canon 82

In some pictures of the venerable icons, a lamb is painted to which the Precursor points his finger, which is received as a type of grace, indicating beforehand through the Law, our true Lamb, Christ our God. Embracing therefore the ancient types and shadows as symbols of the truth, and patterns given to the Church, we prefer grace and truth, receiving it as the fulfilment of the Law. In order therefore that that which is perfect may be delineated to the eyes of all, at least in coloured expression, we decree that the figure in human form of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, Christ our God, be henceforth exhibited in images, instead of the ancient lamb, so that all may understand by means of it the depths of the humiliation of the Word of God, and that we may recall to our memory his conversation in the flesh, his passion and salutary death, and his redemption which was wrought for the whole world.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

[Irish Hermit]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

No, Rome never had the power to annul the decisions of a council.

Agreed, but when one of the great patriarchates/churches, and in this instance the patriarchate/church acknowledged by all as the church holding first rank, refuses to accept particular canons, then they cannot be said to be promulgated in accord with the essential conciliar principles of the Church and its governance.  They become at best local canons accepted by some of the Local Churches.

That would be one of the text book arguments the Orientals held against the Chalcedon Council

But of course the Orientals very soon abandoned communion with the rest of the Church.  Rome did not do that after Chalcedon.  It remained an integral part of the Church and held first rank for a further 600 years.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

No, Rome never had the power to annul the decisions of a council.

Agreed, but when one of the great patriarchates/churches, and in this instance the patriarchate/church acknowledged by all as the church holding first rank, refuses to accept particular canons, then they cannot be said to be promulgated in accord with the essential conciliar principles of the Church and its governance.  They become at best local canons accepted by some of the Local Churches.

That would be one of the text book arguments the Orientals held against the Chalcedon Council

But of course the Orientals very soon abandoned communion with the rest of the Church.  Rome did not do that after Chalcedon.  It remained an integral part of the Church and held first rank for a further 600 years.

True, we were a bit more upset than they were

However, there were several attempts at reconciliation as there always are year after year, and I pray for such earnestly, as it is only One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, the lines we actually divide ourselves with are purely in our imagination.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[ialmisry]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

No, Rome never had the power to annul the decisions of a council.

Agreed, but when one of the great patriarchates/churches, and in this instance the patriarchate/church acknowledged by all as the church holding first rank, refuses to accept particular canons, then they cannot be said to be promulgated in accord with the essential conciliar principles of the Church and its governance.  They become at best local canons accepted by some of the Local Churches.

That would be one of the text book arguments the Orientals held against the Chalcedon Council

Unfortunately, or fortunately, no it wouldn't be.  That Acts of Chalcedon bear the signature of all the autocephalous Churches/patriarchs, except for Alexandria, which was dealt with seperately in session four of the Council, and Armenia (whose autocephaly wasn't clear cut at Chalcedon, and was dealt with later).

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

No, Rome never had the power to annul the decisions of a council.

Agreed, but when one of the great patriarchates/churches, and in this instance the patriarchate/church acknowledged by all as the church holding first rank, refuses to accept particular canons, then they cannot be said to be promulgated in accord with the essential conciliar principles of the Church and its governance.  They become at best local canons accepted by some of the Local Churches.

That would be one of the text book arguments the Orientals held against the Chalcedon Council

Unfortunately, or fortunately, no it wouldn't be.  That Acts of Chalcedon bear the signature of all the autocephalous Churches/patriarchs, except for Alexandria, which was dealt with seperately in session four of the Council, and Armenia (whose autocephaly wasn't clear cut at Chalcedon, and was dealt with later).

Was not Alexandria one of the great Patriarchates? Besides of which, Chalcedon was a debated council up until the reign of Emperor Justinian.  Interestingly, Emperor Justinian was rather cordial with the Axumite Emperors, especially Emperor Caleb.  Ostentatiously this was in regards to international commerce and the security of Roman trade routes through the Red Sea (much like why the EU and America support the current Ethiopian regime, to thwart Somali piracy, whether in the 1st or 21st century, a lot has changed, but a lo remains 100% identical), perhaps could Justinian been trying to court the Axumites as an ally or at least a diplomatic chess piece to counterbalance against Alexandria and Antioch which were causing such trouble for Chalcedonian Council?  Until Justinian's reign, at times, the Council of Chalcedon was a minority opinion, politically speaking, and until the death of Emperor Anastasius the political leadership and clergies who were opposed to it had almost got this Council negated to a local Byzantine Council rather then universally Ecumenical status.  This same situation played itself out similarly again during the Monothelitism discussions a century later, again when the death of Emperor Heraclius voided all the political diplomacy and negotiations which had almost again unified not only the Church, but the Empire.  Alas, clearly history has demonstrated century after century, that God intends this split.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[ialmisry]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

No, Rome never had the power to annul the decisions of a council.

Agreed, but when one of the great patriarchates/churches, and in this instance the patriarchate/church acknowledged by all as the church holding first rank, refuses to accept particular canons, then they cannot be said to be promulgated in accord with the essential conciliar principles of the Church and its governance.  They become at best local canons accepted by some of the Local Churches.

That would be one of the text book arguments the Orientals held against the Chalcedon Council

Unfortunately, or fortunately, no it wouldn't be.  That Acts of Chalcedon bear the signature of all the autocephalous Churches/patriarchs, except for Alexandria, which was dealt with seperately in session four of the Council, and Armenia (whose autocephaly wasn't clear cut at Chalcedon, and was dealt with later).

Was not Alexandria one of the great Patriarchates?

Yes. And?

Besides of which, Chalcedon was a debated council up until the reign of Emperor Justinian.

Nicea I was a debated Council.

Interestingly, Emperor Justinian was rather cordial with the Axumite Emperors, especially Emperor Caleb.  Ostentatiously this was in regards to international commerce and the security of Roman trade routes through the Red Sea (much like why the EU and America support the current Ethiopian regime, to thwart Somali piracy, whether in the 1st or 21st century, a lot has changed, but a lo remains 100% identical), perhaps could Justinian been trying to court the Axumites as an ally or at least a diplomatic chess piece to counterbalance against Alexandria and Antioch which were causing such trouble for Chalcedonian Council?

Justinian's policy was to support the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox outside the empire (especially against the Nestorians) and suppress them within the empire.

Until Justinian's reign, at times, the Council of Chalcedon was a minority opinion, politically speaking, and until the death of Emperor Anastasius the political leadership and clergies who were opposed to it had almost got this Council negated to a local Byzantine Council rather then universally Ecumenical status.  This same situation played itself out similarly again during the Monothelitism discussions a century later, again when the death of Emperor Heraclius voided all the political diplomacy and negotiations which had almost again unified not only the Church, but the Empire.

 
Monotheletism never united anything, just created more schism.

Alas, clearly history has demonstrated century after century, that God intends this split.

God intends no schism.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Nicea I was a debated Council.

Not really, it became the relative corner stone of all  the jurisdictions, interpretations were debated, but the Ecumenical legitimacy seemed rarely in question, where as it was not until Justinian that the Chalcedon Council truly took on the kind of Ecumenical status it subsequently enjoyed.

Monotheletism never united anything, just created more schism.

In the long term, yes.  In the short term, much of the political and ecclesiastical leadership of all the major jurisdictions and polities were finding mutual and diplomatic agreement.  It was not necessarily the soundness of the Monothelite doctrine I'm referring to, so much as the temporary political unification which it stemmed from.  There were a lot of hand shakes and friendships established by the discussions, and the increase in schism really only came AFTER Emperor Heraclius' death. Of course the Orientals emphasize the miaphysis and therefore a miathelitism, which the Eastern camp found detestable, however, doctrinal disputes aside, the political personalities had come to a lot of consensus and agreements during their discussions.  Personally, I feel it is the politics more so than the theologies which divided the Church, both during the Chalcedon debates and the Monothelite debates..  Politics are uglier then religion generally speaking

God intends no schism.

Well, the reality of schism seems to speak for itself on this one.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[witega]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Nicea I was a debated Council.

Not really, it became the relative corner stone of all  the jurisdictions, interpretations were debated, but the Ecumenical legitimacy seemed rarely in question, where as it was not until Justinian that the Chalcedon Council truly took on the kind of Ecumenical status it subsequently enjoyed.

You might want to review your 4th century history. "Athanasius against the world" occurred decades after Nicea and it was a reference to the fact that almost all the major sees in the East were controlled by Arians at that time. A major driver for the calling of Constantinople I is because it was the first time in decades that the Orthodox/Nicean party had an opportunity to install one of their own as bishop of Constantinople.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

You might want to review your 4th century history. "Athanasius against the world" occurred decades after Nicea and it was a reference to the fact that almost all the major sees in the East were controlled by Arians at that time. A major driver for the calling of Constantinople I is because it was the first time in decades that the Orthodox/Nicean party had an opportunity to install one of their own as bishop of Constantinople.

True true, we must not forget the dramas which were inflicted in the post-Nicaea, especially towards Saint Athanasius..

sometimes my head is in too many centuries simultaneously

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[ialmisry]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Nicea I was a debated Council.

Not really

?

You've no doubt heard of Pope St. Athanasius' five exiles, no?  Athanasius contra mundi, Athanasius against the world?  St. Jerome's famous quote "the world awoke and found itself Arian"?

Yes, really.

it became

the relative corner stone of all  the jurisdictions

ALL the patriarchates were controlled by the Arians and their sympathizers.

interpretations were debated, but the Ecumenical legitimacy seemed rarely in question

yes, it was.  Dozens of new creeds were written up to replace it, which is why the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council set their seal on it.

where as it was not until Justinian that the Chalcedon Council truly took on the kind of Ecumenical status it subsequently enjoyed.

It was explicitely accepted by all the patriarchates (except Armenia, which had a murky status).  That wasn't in question until 30 years later.

Monotheletism never united anything, just created more schism.

In the long term, yes.  In the short term, much of the political and ecclesiastical leadership of all the major jurisdictions and polities were finding mutual and diplomatic agreement.

No, Monotheletism was fought from the beginning, and greatly hampered the ability of the Emperor to rally the Christians against the Sassanids and then the Caliphs.  It did find some non-Chalcedonians reconciling with the Emperor, only to lose the Orthodox.

It was not necessarily the soundness of the Monothelite doctrine I'm referring to

I should hope not, as Monothelite doctrine has no soundness in it.

so much as the temporary political unification which it stemmed from.

The henoticon had better success, let alone Chalcedon.

There were a lot of hand shakes and friendships established by the discussions, and the increase in schism really only came AFTER Emperor Heraclius' death.

No, Patriarch St. Sophronius made sure of that.  Though, if you mean that the Emperor and EP abandoned their first formulation of monotheletism in the face of Pat. St. Sophronius, then I guess you can say that, but even then Rome and Jerusalem rejected Heracleus' Ekthesis, and Heracleus rejected the heresy on his deathbed.

Of course the Orientals emphasize the miaphysis and therefore a miathelitism, which the Eastern camp found detestable, however, doctrinal disputes aside, the political personalities had come to a lot of consensus and agreements during their discussions.  Personally, I feel it is the politics more so than the theologies which divided the Church, both during the Chalcedon debates and the Monothelite debates..  Politics are uglier then religion generally speaking

Yes (except for the Monothelite debates).

God intends no schism.

Well, the reality of schism seems to speak for itself on this one.

No, it doesn't, but there is no shortage of those who will speak for it.

[ironchapman]

So, let me summarize, what I think I've learned and also had confirmed for me from the Eastern Orthodox posters here:

Chalcedon's canon 28 is a valid canon. Pope Leo I accepted all 28 canons of this council, even though he protested against the 28th. To his evident dismay, the bishops in the eastern areas of Leo's see gave the see of Constantinople 2nd rank in honor after Rome. These 28 canons are accepted as valid also because they are from an Ecumenical Council, regardless of any protests made by the Pope when he approved of all of the canons.

The Pope in Rome never had the ability to annul or veto a council or canon. At various times the Popes tried to assert such a power, but it was never seen as a valid claim by any other see.

At the Council of Chalcedon, when the Acts of Pope St. Dioscorus at the Second Council of Ephesus were read out, the Roman legates wanted to know why EP St. Flavian was not given the honor of being before Alexandria and Antioch. This shows that even prior to the agreement on Canon 28, the See of Constantinople was acknowledged as second in honor, after only Rome. These objections were also raised in spite of whatever claims to the contrary Rome was attempting to make about Constantinople I's 3rd canon, which said much the same thing as Chalcedon's 28th canon only 70 years earlier.

And regardless of what happened with respect to Constantinople's status at Chalcedon, Ephesus II, or Constantinople I, the four Eastern Sees were right to separate from Rome after the latter adopted such things as the Filioque and certain claims made by the Roman See about the power of the Papacy (infallibility and jurisdiction over all other sees as opposed to the traditional primacy and jurisdiction over only its own members) because they altered the ancient and orthodox faith that had been practiced since the times of the Apostles.

Also, any claims made by historians or other commentators (including a Pope or two) from this era writing later about Chalcedon having only 27 canons are not to be taken as true, whether they were making an honest mistake or deliberately attempting to deceive.

From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, this is all correct, right?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Convert Issues (Moderator: Thomas) > Topic: Canon 28 of Chalcedon Question