The Great East-West Schism

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
Justin Kissel

Post by Justin Kissel »

Considering the source--and that's not meant to be derogatory--I think it was a pretty good overview. I would personally tend to discuss the inward differences (e.g., the west becoming more humanistic), but then perhaps my approach wouldn't be ideal for an introduction or overview of the schism (most people like concrete stuff, like events and people and places). Having said that I generally liked (=accepted) it, I would like to make a few comments. First, regarding the Photian schism, the text said:

"It began in 858, when Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople was exiled by the Byzantine emperor (for criticizing the emperor's private life). Ignatius resigned his office under pressure, and a gifted layman named Photius was appointed patriarch of the capital city."

The author spends a good deal of time on Photius (considering the overall size of the text), and allows the Saintliness (is that a word?) of Photius to come through. Still, the above could easily be misunderstood: it's not wrong so much as possibly misleading.

In the case of Ignatius, there was more than just "criticizing of the emperor's private life" going on. It's also notable (ie. should have been noted) that Photius didn't become the new Patriarch right away, as the text seems to imply. It was actually over a year later when he was elevated to Patriarch, and then only reluctantly, because he was "pressed by the urgent need of the situation, the government and the bishops". [1] We don't want Orthodox Christians thinking that Photius was just waiting for Ignatius to be removed so he could swoop in and become Patriarch. There's also this:

A century later, any remaining harmony between East and West evaporated completely... Eastern Christendom has never forgotten the slaughter and the pillage of those three terrible days in 1204. Historian Steven Runciman wrote, "The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword, and the sword was to sever Christendom." Resentment and indignation against Western sacrilege was emblazoned on Eastern hearts. "Even the Saracens [Muslims] are merciful and kind," protested one contemporary Orthodox historian, "compared with these men who bear the Cross of Christ on their shoulders." Historians still engage in genteel debates about when the Great Schism began, but after 1204, it's clear that which had been joined together was now decisively put asunder.

Certainly that which was done in Constantinople in 1204 was horrible (in fact, worse things were done than were mentioned); it left a deep mark on the Orthodox Church. However, IMO the language used in the above text should be counter-balanced with a statement letting the audience know that, in spite of this deep wound, the Orthodox still--out of brotherly love--tried to bring the Latins back into union with the Church. The wound wasn't a fatal blow that stopped all dialogue totally.

Many times I've heard Catholics say something like: "You refuse to come into communion because you are bitter over something that happened eight hundred years ago." The article certainly didn't say this, but someone reading the article already having that mindset would only have it reinforced by what they read. Again, it's not so much a case of being wrong, it's just possibly misleading.

We Orthodox aren't bitter, we're only sad and worried for the souls of those seperated from the Church. What's more, the Orthodox repeatedly "reached out" in an attempt to "come together" (to use some ecumenical-speak) during the post-1204 years. In presenting the history and beliefs of the Church we must always be careful to not reinforce (or even be silent about) the (perhaps unintended) misrepresentations and misinformation that is currently available concerning the Orthodox Church.

The last comment I'd make is not an objection so much as a warning to be cautious. The author of the article admits to being "indebted" to Bishop Kallistos' "The Orthodox Church" (1993 edition). As Hieromonk Patapios has demonstrated in his Traditionalist Critique of The Orthodox Church, this newer edition is not always as... shall we say... bold in speaking the truth. Reading the relevant sections of this critique might be beneficial to supplement what the author of the "Christianity Today" article said.

As I said to begin the post, though, I generally liked the article, and think it gives a pretty good overview. (while perhaps missing a few points of difference, though considering that it was only 3,500 words long, that's expected).

Justin

[1] The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, (Holy Apostles Convent, 1990), pp. 14-18

User avatar
Seraphim Reeves
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
Location: Canada

Some thoughts

Post by Seraphim Reeves »

As time has moved forward, I've come to a new appreciation of the RCC, and it's relationship to the Orthodox Church. I consider the following to be important considerations.

1) While it is emphasized (particularly by the Church's apologists) that all Bishops are equal, the Church's history is not one of an egalitarian episcopal college, whether on an oecumenical/pan-orthodox scale, or in a particular synod. Synod's themselves have primates, and they most certainly have strong powers over the members of their synod. Thus, while it is true all Bishops are equal (no one can be "more bishopish", nor is their a holy order above the episcopate; it truly is the fullness of the priesthood), almost by default (since it is a necessity) there is a heirarchy amongst these Bishops.

2) While we often accuse our RC friends of being selective with the Church Fathers, we should avoid doing anything which also would make us so guilty. For example, while it is true that the fullness of the Church exists wherever a Bishop celebrates the Holy Eucharist (as St.Ignatios of Antioch taught), this is balanced as well by the other side of the ecclessiological equation, by St.Cyprian's teaching about the "Universal Church". The two co-exist, and are both found in the Fathers. It is only to our peril that we ignore one or the other (ending up either with papism on one hand, or sectarianism on the other.)

3) Connected to point #2, is the issue of the Pope of Rome. We should be honest enough to admit, that Rome's rather "striking" claims for herself go back further than Pope Nicholas I, back through to Popes we claim as Saints of our Church (Popes Gregory and Leo come to mind.) However, I don't think this is something that should make us squirm. Too often, Orthodox apologetical materials (or at least that I've come across) are very reactionary - if the Roman Catholics say "white", these apologists feel they just have to say "black". This is unfortunately what happened in the past, with some of the polemic against the Papacy (including modern ecclessiological theories, some of which are to my mind quite troubling.) There is no danger in recognizing that by necessity, some kind of primacy must exist in the Church (for just as there is a Bishop of the little flock, so good order would seem to require some visible leadership on a larger, perhaps even Oecumenical scale), or at least that this is a healthy thing. However, just like the Bishop to who we owe obedience, such has to be a primacy which exists within the Church, not above it. This sadly, is the key area where RC ecclessiology has erred - not that the Bishop of Rome should be the visible head of the Church, or that he in some special way carries on the ministry of St.Peter (something recognized at various points in the past by both eastern and western Christians); rather the error is in the belief that this primacy is above the Church, and that it cannot be defected from (thus the Bishop of Rome is not truly a man with a free will, who can choose or reject faith, but is infallible, which is a curious teaching, since it is either an entirely useless one, OR by default it requires the Pope ultimatly be infallible in all things; a point I'll expand upon if anyone is interested.)

4) It's ok to not be "Byzantine." While the sad fact is that none save those of the "Byzantine rite" and tradition persisted in the pure confession of the Apostolic faith, it shouldn't be forgotten that there is a legitimate place for diversity in the Church - not simply for ritual, but also in terms of ethos and even spirituality to some extent. Indeed, even in the "Byzantine" Orthodox Church of our present day, there is a marked difference between say, Russian spirituality and that found amongst the Greeks or Arabs. It's obviously not as noticable as what one would have found between say, the Latins of St.Gregory the Great's period and what one would have seen in Hagia Sophia, but it exists. And that's "ok." Honestly, while I will "take" the growth of the faith in the west however it may come, I personally don't think expansion will really begin until at least something of the western tradition is redeemed and given back to western man. I used to feel differently about this, but experience has proven (to me at least) otherwise. God forbid we be snobs, or fall into the sad error of some of our spiritual forefathers, who disdained the Latins not only for legitimate reasons, but also for "reasons" which were nothing more than snobbery (they're all "frankish barbarians", without any higher or particularly spiritual learning, etc.) The same Holy Bible which speaks of the divinization of man, also speaks of Christ the Victim atoning for the sins of the world by His Precious Blood; if one does not peddle in distortions, neither truth is exclusively western or eastern...it's simply a matter of temprement and emphasis (since no "easterner" ever saw the forgiveness of his sins without being washed in the "blood of the lamb", nor has any westerner attained sanctity without acquiring the Holy Spirit and becoming a "partaker in the Divine Nature" as St.Peter taught).

5) On matters of liturgy and in particular sacred art and architecture, often much is made out of nothing by some polemicists on our side of the fence. While I personally find the Byzantine Iconographic tradition to be the most satisfactory and sober form of sacred art, let us be honest; well before the schism, there was quite a ready acceptance of statuary in the Christian west, and there are even some ancient examples of venerated Christian statues in the East (though I think they were in the form of outdoor shrines; such as the sacred image of Christ healing the woman with the issue of blood, which was a statue which apparently dated from before the Edict of Milan, that once stood in Jerusalem.) Of course, I don't think there is any excuse for the unabashed humanism and floral decadence which underlay alot of the "religious art" of the renaisance in Europe, and I know quite a few RC's who would agree with this (that this period saw a lot of abberations.) As for critiques of realistic portrayals Christ and the Saints in religious art, while I understand the rational, I often find it to be a lot of straining over nothing (in particular these critiques are often directed at the, admittedly westernized, sacred art of the Russian Church, particularly in recent centuries.) I used to buy the arguments involved here, UNTIL I saw eastern Icons (as well as ancient western Icons) from before the Iconoclast controversy (sadly, very few of them survived), and noticed something; some of them were quite realistic! There's no doubt that the authors of these images, were at least attempting photo realism. Some conspicuous examples (in particular, a well known Icon of Christ) survived in St.Catharine's monastery, and others come out of Egypt, or can be found in Rome's ancient Churches.

The above stick out in my mind as some points where we should be fair with Roman Catholicism. It does no good to exaggerate the situation, or tear down straw men. This leaves room for the REAL issues dividing the RCC from the Orthodox Church.

i) a dictatorial papacy, which see's itself not simply as the visible head of the Church, but as being infallible. This error is very frightening, because it creates the possibility of immortalizing error. A good example of this can be seen in the modern RCC. There are a lot of people (though still a minority) in the RCC who can be called "traditionalist" in their piety and religious views. They want nothing to do with the half lutheran "new mass", or other silliness (which is very much tolerated by the RC heirarchy, and unfortunately the Pope.) Unfortunately, these people have a near impossible battle in front of them, since "infallibility" and making the Pope's authority one "over" and not "within" the Church (as Vatican I "solemnly defined", along with infallibility) is exactly what led to that situation (which is funny, since most of these traditionalists are big on Vatican I, not at all "Old Catholic" in their thinking.) Without those so called "dogmas" on the books, these traditionalists might have had a credible chance of saving their communion from what is quite obviously an abusive, and innovative approach to sacred worship (since there is precious little "sacred" about it, save for a few extremely rare exceptions.) However, they are forever consigned to being "schismatical" and sinfully disobedient, since there is no possible legitimate disobedience to the Pope, who was given (as a matter of dogma) absolute, and immediate authority over all Christians by Vatican I. Not to say that view was new; but it had not been so clearly stated, or dogmatized/absolutized until that point.

ii) a bad habit of not simply speculating with insufficient evidence (not all logical deductions in the religious sphere being bad, of course), and more strikingly, dogmatizing about said subjects. For example, the basics behind "purgatory" make a good deal of sense; the obvious need of some people, even if they love God, to be purged after death of their attachment to the flesh, or to make some kind of atonement for their wrong doing. But dogmatizing about a subject where the Christian tradition in it's central sources (most importantly the Holy Bible) has so little to actually say, seems rash, and even arrogant. Indeed, the exact nature of one's state after death (yet before the ressurection) is something which the Bible and Tradition on the whole don't say a lot about (whether it be blessedness or damnation), let alone "purgatory". This same problem can be found in other places in RC doctrine.

Seraphim

Justin Kissel

Post by Justin Kissel »

seraphim reeves

Just wanted to say up front, this is for discussion/clarification, and not to argue. :) I just hope what I say won't come off as combative or contradicting; it may, though, because I seem to have gone the opposite direction in my perception of Rome.

1) While it is emphasized (particularly by the Church's apologists) that all Bishops are equal, the Church's history is not one of an egalitarian episcopal college...almost by default (since it is a necessity) there is a heirarchy amongst these Bishops.

I agree with this, but I'm afraid to say so (too loudly) because of the widespread abuse that goes on today. It's not only the RCC that I'm thinking of, but also those Orthodox who support neo-papal-patriarchalism in some form. Yes, there is a hierarchy! And yes, we must be "subordinate" (out of love and duty, not slavery) to those "above us"... yet we cannot raise particular bishops so high that they become "mega-bishops". With rare exceptions, one particular bishop, see, autocephalous church, etc. has never been raised above everyone else by an outside force. (I can think of only one exception--though perhaps there are more--that being when Saint Emperor Theodosius decreed that to be in the Church you had to be in communion with certain bishops). When bishops are "above others" (properly understood), it is because of inward piety and orthodoxy, and if this piety or orthodoxy should collapse, so would the special perogative. This is exactly what hasn't happened in the last century: Patriarchates fell into moral and theological decay, and yet they are still viewed as some type of bestowers of officiality and validity.

I guess the other reason I hate to say what you are saying too loudly is that we have plenty of examples of abuse from the past, and Rome was not alone in it's ... shall we say... attempts at asserting it's perceived power. Alexandria, for example, more than once during the fourth century tried to meddle in the affairs of the Church at Constantinople, and acted downright popish (I don't mean that to be harsh, but if the shoe fits...). Yes, certainly some bishops are higher or lower than others (while paradoxically all are equal), as we see even in the New Testament (E.g., Gal. 1:18-19; Acts 15; etc.) Yet even one of the twelve can fall, and so I tend to be careful about this stuff. Perhaps this does lead me into under-emphasising an aspect of Orthodox ecclesiology (perhaps I am included among those whose "modern ecclesiological theories" you find quite troubling). If so, please do tell me Seraphim; I promise not to argue with you on any points you make after this post I'm making right now: if you deem me in need of correction, please do so without fear (e.g., without fear of getting involved in a long debate, or trading "proofs" for positions till the cows come home).

2) ...this is balanced as well by the other side of the ecclessiological equation, by St.Cyprian's teaching about the "Universal Church".It is only to our peril that we ignore one or the other (ending up either with papism on one hand, or sectarianism on the other.)

Could you expand on this further? Are you speaking here or ethnicity/nationalism getting in the way, or of a lack of "reaching out," or what? Certainly all Orthodox Churches profess with their lips that they are "universal," in what way would you say that some are not?

3) Too often, Orthodox apologetical materials (or at least that I've come across) are very reactionary - if the Roman Catholics say "white", these apologists feel they just have to say "black".

Granted, some of the texts normally suggested are reactionary and not very even-handed. Do you know of any even-handed texts on the subject?

(including modern ecclessiological theories, some of which are to my mind quite troubling.)

Could you expand on exactly which theories you mean? Khomiakov? Popovich? Patrick Barnes? Met. Cyprian? Meyendorff? Met. Philip? Pat. Bartholomew? Pat. Ignatius IV?

(thus the Bishop of Rome is not truly a man with a free will, who can choose or reject faith, but is infallible, which is a curious teaching, since it is either an entirely useless one, OR by default it requires the Pope ultimatly be infallible in all things; a point I'll expand upon if anyone is interested.)

Please do. /\

4) Honestly, while I will "take" the growth of the faith in the west however it may come, I personally don't think expansion will really begin until at least something of the western tradition is redeemed and given back to western man.

Again, can you expand on this? Where do we as westerners start if we agree with this?

Justin

Justin Kissel

Post by Justin Kissel »

Bump :?:

Justin Kissel

Post by Justin Kissel »

Bump #2

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: Euless, TX, United States of America
Contact:

Forged Documents and Papal Power

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Another interesting piece of the puzzle: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forged Documents and Papal Power
Mary Ann Collins (A Former Catholic Nun)
www.CatholicConcerns.Com June 2002

What we now call popes were originally bishops of Rome (one bishop among brother bishops from other cities). Then they became popes, with power over the entire Church. Then they became so powerful that they were able to depose kings and emperors. They became so powerful that they were able to force kings use their secular might to enforce the Inquisition, which was conducted by Catholic priests and monks. In 1870, the Pope was declared to be infallible. The process of increasing papal power was influenced by forged documents which changed people's perception of the history of the papacy and of the Church.

I'm just going to briefly summarize some information about these forgeries. At the end of this paper is a link to an on-line article which gives detailed historical information.

One of the most famous forgeries is the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals," which were written around 845 A.D. (They are also known as the "False Decretals".) They consist of 115 documents which were supposedly written by early popes. [Note 1]

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" admits that these are forgeries. It says that the purpose of these forged documents was to enable the Church to be independent of secular power, and to prevent the laity from ruling the Church. [Note 2 gives the address of an on-line article.] In other words, their purpose was to increase the power of the Pope and the Catholic Church.

In addition to documents which were total forgeries, genuine documents were altered. One hundred twenty-five genuine documents had forged material added to them, which increased the power of the Pope. Many early documents were changed to say the opposite of what they had originally said. [Note 3]

One of the forgeries is a letter which was falsely attributed to Saint Ambrose. It said that if a person does not agree with the Holy See, then he or she is a heretic. [Note 4] This is an example of how papal power was promoted by fraudulently claiming the authority of highly respected Early Fathers.

Another famous forgery from the nineth century was "The Donation of Constantine". It claimed that Emperor Constantine gave the western provinces of the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome. The Pope used it to claim authority in secular matters. [Note 5]

When Greek Christians tried to discuss issues with the Church in Rome, the popes often used forged documents to back their claims. This happened so frequently that for 700 years the Greeks referred to Rome as "the home of forgeries". [Note 6]

For three hundred years, the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals" and other forgeries were used by Roman Popes to claim authority over the Church in the East. The Patriarch of Constantinople rejected these false claims of primacy. This resulted in the separation of the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church. [Note 7 gives addresses of on-line articles.]

In the middle of the twelfth century, a monk named Gratian wrote the "Decretum," which became the basis for Canon Law (the legal system for running the Roman Catholic Church). It contained numerous quotations from forged documents. Gratian drew many of his conclusions from those quotations. Gratian quoted 324 passages which were supposedly written by popes of the first four centuries. Of those passages, only eleven are genuine. The other 313 quotations are forgeries. [Note 8]

In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas wrote the "Summa Theologica" and numerous other works. His writings are the foundation for scholastic theology. Aquinas used Gratian's "Decretum" for quotations from church fathers and early popes. [Note 9] Aquinas also used forged documents which he thought were genuine. [Note 10]

The importance of Thomas Aquinas' theology can be seen in the encyclical of Pope Pius X on the priesthood. In 1906, Pius said that in their study of philosophy, theology, and Scripture, men studying for the priesthood should follow the directions given by the popes and the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. [This papal encyclical is available on-line Note 11 gives addresses.]

William Webster is the author of "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History". (I recommend this book.) His web site has an article entitled "Forgeries and the Papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy". The article gives detailed information about the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals" and other forged documents, showing their influence on the papacy and on the Catholic Church. Four quotations from his article are below. (They are used by permission.)

"In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in the Western Church, which dramatically altered the Constitution of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full development of the papacy. The papacy could never have emerged without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the Church and of men's perceptions of the history of that Constitution. As long as the true facts of Church history were well known, it would serve as a buffer against any unlawful ambitions. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West. This forgery is known as the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals," written around 845 A.D. The "Decretals" are a complete fabrication of Church history. They set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century and make it appear that the popes had always exercised sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church Councils."

"The historical facts reveal that the papacy was never a reality as far as the universal Church is concerned. There are many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to that fact as well as to the importance of the forgeries, especially those of "Pseudo-Isidore". One such historian is Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger. He was the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic." [Webster quotes extensitely from Dollinger.]

"In addition to the "Pseudo Isidorian Decretals" there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled 'Against the Errors of the Greeks'. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers.... These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries."

"The authority claims of Roman Catholicism ultimately devolve upon the institution of the papacy. The papacy is the center and source from which all authority flows for Roman Catholicism. Rome has long claimed that this institution was established by Christ and has been in force in the Church from the very beginning. But the historical record gives a very different picture. This institution was promoted primarily through the falsification of historical fact through the extensive use of forgeries as Thomas Aquinas' apologetic for the papacy demonstrates. Forgery is its foundation."

I strongly encourage you to read William Webster's article. It has an abundance of valuable historical information. The address of the article is:

http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html

USE OF THIS ARTICLE

I encourage you to put this article on your website or to link to it. I encourage you to quote from this article, to copy it, and to distribute copies of it. I encourage you to translate it into foreign languages and to distribute foreign language copies of it. You have my permission to sell copies of this article. I do not want any royalties or financial remuneration of any kind. You have my permission to publish this article by itself, or to incorporate it into a published work of your own, as long as you do the following two things: (1) Don't make any changes in the article; and (2) Include the following statement: "Copyright 2002 by Mary Ann Collins. All rights reserved. Used by permission."

Notes

  1. William Webster, "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), pages 62-63. Webster is a former Catholic.

Peter de Rosa, "Vicars of Christ" (Dublin, Ireland: Poolbeg Press, 1988, 2000), pages 58-61, 174, 208. De Rosa is a Catholic, and a former Catholic priest. He was able to do historical research in the Vatican Archives.

Paul Johnson, "A History of Christianity" (New York: A Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, 1976, 1995), page 195. Johnson is a Catholic and a prominent historian.

  1. "Benedict Levita" in the "Catholic Encyclopedia". [Benedict Levita is the pseudonym of the author of the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals".]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02466a.htm

  1. De Rosa, page 59.

  2. De Rosa, page 166.

  3. Johnson, pages 170-172.

  4. De Rosa, page 59.

  5. Orthodox Christian Information Center, "The False Decretals of Isidore". An excerpt from "The Papacy" by Abbee Guette. The author was a devout Catholic and a historian. As a result of his historical research about the papacy, he eventually joined the Orthodox Church.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/decretals.htm

"The Great Schism of 1054". This is a sermon given at the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist,in Washington, D.C.

http://www.stjohndc.org/Homilies/9606a.htm

  1. Webster, pages 62-63. De Rosa, page 60.

  2. Webster, page 63. De Rosa, page 60.

  3. William Webster, "Forgeries and the papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy". This gives detailed accounts of Aquinas' use of forged documents which he wrongly believed to be genuine.

http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html

  1. Pius X, "Pieni l'animo" ("On the Clergy in Italy"), July 28, 1906. (See paragraph 6.)

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stp06010.htm http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P10CLR.HTM

Copyright 2002 by Mary Ann Collins. All rights reserved. www.CatholicConcerns.Com e-Mail: MaryAnnCollins@Juno.Com

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: Euless, TX, United States of America
Contact:

Tome of Leo

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

The Tome of Leo

"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, 'We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, Session I)

Latins assert that The Tome of Leo gives evidence to their belief in papal primacy. They also give the example of the fathers at Chalcedon who proclaimed "Peter has spoken through Leo" as a result of examining Leo

Post Reply