When Peter Met Caesar: Reading the Acts of the IV Ecumenical council

The true reason for the schism was not the pride of Rome, whose primacy had not been disputed by anyone, but the rise of the New Rome with its new pagan principle of primacy — the imperial might.

Both Orthodox and Catholics trace the foundations of their Churches to the age of the Ecumenical Councils—the great synods of the distant past at which the fundamental dogmas of our Roman and Greek Faith, professed as Catholic and Orthodox, were defined.

Orthodox polemicists are often fond of appropriating the early Ecumenical Councils, portraying them as wholly Eastern affairs—after all, the Emperor was in the East, and the overwhelming majority of the bishops came from the East. Everything, we are told, was decided collectively and conciliarity prevailed, while Rome remained on the sidelines: sometimes in agreement with the rest, sometimes in opposition.

Very well. This time I am prepared to concede the point—but on one condition: let us examine one concrete case.

We are often told that the Great Schism was fundamentally about power; that Rome, overcome by pride, came to crave supremacy and thereby brought division upon the Church. My contention is the opposite. If the issue was indeed one of power and pride, then it was not Rome that succumbed to them. And that can be demonstrated.

Now let my reasoning be more history, less polemics.

I do indeed maintain that main reason of Rome-Constantinople schism, its deepest cultural and sociological roots lay not in an attempt by Rome to elevate itself above an already established God-given and Fathers-approved pentarchic order of the Church (this is a myth to sell modern people of little knowledge), but in the spectacular political rise of Constantinople at the expense of the actual ancient Apostolic Sees of Alexandria and Antioch.

It was these two churches — whose authority rested upon apostolic foundation (namely that of Apostle Peter) and centuries of ecclesiastical tradition — that gradually found themselves eclipsed by a city which could claim neither apostolic origin nor ancient precedence.

Sometimes, of course, the older apostolic sees bore part of the responsibility themselves. The Nestorian and Monophysite controversies led to what might be called an ‘ethnic cleansing’ of many Eastern episcopal sees, as Greek bishops and imperial appointees replaced the previous hierarchies. In both Alexandria and Antioch, rival episcopal successions emerged: one rejected by the imperial Church, the other recognised by both the Empire and by the Church that at the time called itself Catholic, while describing its faith as Orthodox. This upheaval further weakened the ancient apostolic centres and accelerated the transfer of influence to Constantinople, whose imperial backing, resources, and political authority increasingly made it the natural centre of ecclesiastical administration.

Constantinople’s case rested instead upon a new constitutional principle: because it was the Empire’s capital, the seat of the emperor and the senate, it was the New Rome and therefore deserved to stand immediately after Elder Rome.

Such was the reasoning of the Fathers of the First Council of Constantinople (381), convened primarily to settle the local ecclesiastical affairs of the imperial capital. These Fathers, who did not see themselves as acting in opposition to Pope Damasus, laid down the following principles concerning the Eastern dioceses within the Empire:

Canon 3
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

Dogmatically that council was impeccable.

It was received by the universal Church and proved indispensable in the struggle against the Pneumatomachi (the heretics who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost), following the way of St Nasil the Great. At the same time, however, the council introduced a genuine ecclesiological novelty that the Elder See of Rome — ‘the conservative guardian’ — had never known and would never accept. The idea that primacy in the Church comes from the earthly might and power of the city holding the see in question.

The See became more of a Throne.

Indeed, hroughout the Christian East, ‘the Elder Rome’ continued to be known, to be more strict in following the historical documents we are just going to read, the Apostolic Throne, although Rome’s primacy was initially understood in apostolic/traditional rather than political terms, despite the Rome’s rich and glorious secular history of power.

Why? Ever since the reforms of Diocletian, the capital of the Western Empire had no longer been Rome but Mediolanum, and later, under Emperor Honorius, it was transferred to Ravenna.

Rome itself had long ceased to be the Empire's effective political centre.

Constantinople, by contrast, had been the undisputed imperial capital since the time of Constantine the Great. It was therefore only natural that the bishops of the East increasingly came to think in imperial rather than apostolic categories, elevating the New Rome because it was the residence of the emperor and senate, even as the Old Rome derived its primacy from an altogether different foundation.

The claims advanced on behalf of Constantinople introduced imperial constitutional logic into the Church’s own order. At one point, ecclesiastical precedence started to be justified not by apostolic foundation of the see (as it clearly had been and used to) but by the political status of the imperial capital. Gradually, the organisation of the Church was explicitly being reshaped according to the administrative geography of the Roman Empire in the East. For here was where the Throne was truly installed...

The process was neither abrupt nor imposed by force alone. Over several decades, especially after repeated doctrinal crises and the removal of heretical bishops, many of the older centres of authority voluntarily yielded practical responsibilities to the Archbishop of Constantinople, the main reasons remaining more administrative rather than ideological.

Two visions — the older, grounded in apostolic succession from St Peter, and the newer, imperial one had coexisted before they came into direct confrontation at the Council of Chalcedon.

This is evident from the council's remarkably diverse proceedings and decrees. The same council that decisively defeated the Monophysite heresy was already speaking in two languages besides Greek and Latin: the language of papal authority and the language of imperial splendour and power. The very circumstances of the council encouraged this tension. It was an assembly whose decisions carried profound political consequences for the Empire and whose proceedings were presided over by imperial judges. I would therefore like to invite you, dear reader, to accompany me to Chalcedon itself, as we read the sources together.

The Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Church, was convened in AD 451 by Emperor Marcian with the consent of Pope Leo I to address the crisis caused by the Monophysite teaching associated with Eutyches.

The council met in the Church of St Euphemia at Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople on the Asiatic shore of the Bosporus (modern Kadıköy, Istanbul). Its first session opened on 8 October 451, and its final plenary session concluded on 1 November. In all, seven formal sessions were held.

We are going to read closely the 6th one.

Once, with the help of Pope Leo the Great, the crisis of heresy had been resolved and the bishops had acclaimed, ‘Peter has spoken through Leo,’ the Eastern bishops turned to administrative matters — to the governance of the Church within the Empire.

They adopted a remarkable canon without the agreement of the Papal Legates:

For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.

— Council of Chalcedon, Canon 28 (451), trans. Henry R. Percival (NPNF, Series 2, Vol. 14)

Who are these Bishops? The bishops who gathered at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 — the one mentioned before. So, it is a concrete legal precedent that took plase less than 80 years before the moment.

Was it an Ecumenical council?

At the time, the Council of Constantinople, which is today universally recognised as the Second Ecumenical Council, had not yet received such recognition from the universal Church, nor even from the subsequent Council of Ephesus, now counted as the Third Ecumenical Council. Its authority remained primarily imperial rather than universal. From the perspective of Constantinople, it could be considered ecumenical because it had been convoked for the oikoumene — that is, for the Roman Empire and its ecclesiastical order.

The legates of Elder Rome, however, did not accept that an imperial council, by its own authority, could alter the constitutional structure of the universal Church. They therefore rejected the attempt to use Constantinople I as a sufficient canonical basis for introducing such a profound innovation. In response to this unilateral claim, the papal legates rose before the council and formally entered their protest.

Here we shall start reading the Acts.

---

SESSION XVI OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

In the consulship of our sovereign Marcian, perpetual Augustus, and of him who shall be proclaimed, on the Kalends of November, at Chalcedon, by the command of our most holy and most pious sovereign Marcian, perpetual Augustus, the aforesaid most noble and most illustrious officials, together with the most reverend bishops and the rest of the holy and ecumenical council, convened by the command of our most holy and most pious sovereign in the city of Chalcedon, assembled in the most holy church of the holy martyr Euphemia;

and when all had taken their seats before the screen of the holy altar, Paschasinus and Lucentius, the most reverend bishops, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said:

“If your Excellencies command, we have a petition to present.”

The most illustrious officials said:

“Speak whatever you wish.”

The most reverend bishop Paschasinus, holding the place of the bishop of Rome, said:

“The rulers of the world, taking thought for the holy Catholic faith, through which their empire is enlarged and strengthened, have been pleased to decree that one faith should be maintained in good peace throughout all the Churches. Their benevolence has also been pleased to extend still greater care to the future, lest any dispute, schism, or scandal should again arise among God’s bishops. Yet yesterday, after your Excellencies and, following you, our humility had withdrawn, certain acts, as we are informed, were drawn up, which we maintain to have been composed contrary to the canons and to ecclesiastical order. We ask that your Excellencies command them to be read, so that all the brethren may know whether they have been drawn up justly or unjustly.”

The most illustrious officials said:

“If any acts were drawn up after our departure, let them be read.”

Thus, the disputed canon was adopted only after the imperial archons, the judges and leading officials of the council, had left the session together with the papal legates, who had been sent to preside over the council on behalf of Pope Leo the Great.

The Сonstantinopolitan ‘damage control group’ was soon to react:

Before the reading, Aetius, archdeacon of the Church of Constantinople, said:

“It has been acknowledged that everything concerning the faith has received due definition; but at councils it is customary, after the principal matter has been determined, to consider and decide other necessary matters as well. We, that is, the most holy Church of Constantinople, had certain known matters to consider; we requested the lord bishops from Rome to take part in these proceedings; they refused, saying that they had received no such instructions. We also appealed to your Excellencies, and you commanded the holy council to examine this very matter. When your Excellencies departed, the most holy bishops, since the matter was one of common concern, rose and requested that these proceedings should take place. They are here; they were conducted neither secretly nor surreptitiously, but constitute lawful and canonical proceedings.”

The most illustrious officials said:

“Let the proceedings that took place be read.”

When Aetius, archdeacon of the Church of Constantinople, had handed over the scroll, Veronicianus, the faithful secretary of the imperial consistory, read:

“Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops, recently read, who assembled under the pious memory of Theodosius the Great, formerly Emperor, in the imperial city of Constantinople, New Rome, we also decree and ordain the same concerning the prerogatives of the most holy Church of this Constantinople, New Rome.

For the Fathers rightly granted prerogatives to the throne of Old Rome because it was the imperial city.

Moved by the same consideration, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops accorded equal prerogatives to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city honoured by the imperial government and the senate, and enjoying equal privileges with the ancient imperial Rome, should also be exalted in ecclesiastical affairs as she is, being second after her.

Therefore, only the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses, and also the bishops among the barbarians within the aforesaid dioceses, shall be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; that is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of the province, shall ordain the bishops of the eparchies, as prescribed by the divine canons.

But the metropolitans themselves of the aforesaid dioceses shall, as has been said, be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the customary agreement in election has been made and reported to him.

I, Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, having assented to the definition, have subscribed.

I, Maximus, Bishop of Antioch in Syria, having assented to the definition, have subscribed.

I, Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, having assented to the definition, have subscribed.

[many names of bishops cut]

I, Nunechius, Bishop of the Metropolis of Laodicea, subscribed, also on behalf of the most reverend bishops subject to me: Heraclius, Symmachius, Philippus, Philadelphius, Philetus, Tatianus, Antiochus, Zosimus, Epiphanius, Arabius, Caius, and Evagoras.”

Let us pause here again.

First of all, we all have to recognise that the very concept of honour in the ancient world was not the same as it became in the modern age. In our time — or, more precisely, in the Anglo-Saxon constitutional tradition — a monarch may reign but not rule: he is clothed with honour, but not necessarily with governing authority. In the ancient world, however, a grant of honour was not merely ceremonial; it implied concrete privileges, jurisdiction, and defined powers.

The clergy of Constantinople have now stated their position with complete clarity. The reason why Constantinople ranked above the ancient Apostolic Sees, and second only to Rome, was said to be its possession of the Senate and its status as the imperial capital. In other words, ecclesiastical privilege was explicitly identified with civil rank.

Is this tradition? Yes—it is a tradition, but a secular tradition of the Roman Empire, dating back to the age of Diocletian, the great reformer of the state and persecutor of the Christians. At the same time, it was an ecclesiological novelty. It introduced into the constitutional life of the Church an imperial principle that Rome had never accepted or enjoyed, for the Apostolic See had always grounded primacy in apostolic succession — above all in the succession of St Peter — not in the residence of the Emperor or the institutions of the state.

“For the Fathers rightly granted prerogatives to the throne of Old Rome because it was the imperial city.” — was a lie and a heresy.

Such is the consistent witness of the actual holy Fathers, both before and after Chalcedon, beginning with St Irenaeus of Lyons and Augustine and extending as far as Maximus the Confessor and Theodore the Studite.

Yet this new imperial logic, reflected in the acts of certain councils of the imperial period after Theodosius the Great had made Catholic Christianity the religion of the Empire, increasingly came to shape the ecclesiastical reality of the Christian East, as the sources that follow will demonstrate.

We continue reading…

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop and representative of the Apostolic See, said:

“Previously your Excellencies decreed, concerning what was done in the presence of the bishops, that no one should decide under compulsion or be forced to subscribe to the aforesaid canons.”

The most reverend bishops cried out:

“No one was compelled.”

Indeed, it was quite natural for the Roman Legate to assume that a rule adopted contrary to normal conciliar procedures was imposed on the bishops. So was the common response…

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop and representative of the Apostolic See, said:

“It appears that additions have been made to the decrees of the two hundred and eighteen and, after them, of the one hundred and fifty Fathers. What is now being mentioned, but has not been included among the conciliar canons, they say was decreed at that time. If, therefore, in those days they made use of such a privilege, why do they now seek that which they enjoyed not according to the canons?”

‘the decrees of the two hundred and eighteen [Fathers]’ — the Nicean Council;
‘one hundred and fifty Fathers’ — those of the First council of Constantinople.

Aetius, archdeacon of the Church of Constantinople, said:

“If they have received any instructions concerning this point, let them bring them forward.”

Boniface, the most reverend presbyter [from Rome], said:

“The most blessed and Apostolic Bishop, among many other things, also gave us this instruction.”

And he read from the document:

“Suffer not, by any rashness whatever, the decree of the holy Fathers to be violated or diminished. By every means preserve among yourselves the dignity of our person in those whom we have sent in our stead; and if any, perhaps relying upon the importance of their own cities, should attempt to arrogate anything to themselves, repress them with the firmness that such conduct deserves.”

The most illustrious officials said: “Let each party produce the canons.”

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and representative of the Apostolic See, read:

“The Sixth Canon of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Holy Fathers. — The Church of Rome has always possessed the primacy. Let Egypt likewise observe that the Bishop of Alexandria has authority over all, since this also is the custom of the Bishop of Rome. Likewise, let the Churches of the principal cities retain their primacy in Antioch and in the other provinces. Above all, let it be manifest that if anyone has been ordained bishop without the consent of the metropolitan bishop, this holy synod has decreed that such a man ought not to be a bishop. But if, when the common consent has been reasonably given and is in accordance with the ecclesiastical rule, two or three oppose it out of personal contentiousness, then let the judgement of the greater number prevail. Since ancient custom has long obtained, and there is an ancient tradition that honour should also be shown to the Bishop of Aelia, that is, Jerusalem, let him accordingly enjoy his proper honour, while the metropolitan retains his own dignity.”

NOTE: The phrase “The Church of Rome has always possessed the primacy” is a Latin editorial addition that made the silent part loud. It articulated explicitly what remained implicit in the Greek original. The absence of this phrase from the Greek text, however, made the same point, historically, even quieter in the Empire.

So, below we see now the Greek version of the same Canon read by Constantine, secretary, from the book submitted by Aetius, the archdeacon:

The Sixth Canon of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Holy Fathers.

“Let the ancient customs prevailing in Egypt be maintained, so that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have authority over all these, since the same is also customary for the Bishop of Rome. Likewise, in Antioch and in the other provinces, let the prerogatives be preserved for the Churches.

And it is altogether evident that if anyone becomes a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great Synod has decreed that such a man ought not to be a bishop.

But if, although the common vote of all is reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical canon, two or three oppose it out of their own contentiousness, then let the vote of the majority prevail.”

Although this version was read out in order to appease the Romans and to demonstrate continuity with the established position, the argument of the voice of the majority would later prove useful to the representatives of the Imperial Church.

The same secretary read from the same book the synodical decree of the Second Council.

These things were decreed by the one hundred and fifty bishops who, by the grace of God, assembled at Constantinople from various provinces at the summons of the most God-beloved Emperor Theodosius, under Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople.

That the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be set aside, nor their canons, but that they are to remain in force. And that every heresy is to be anathematised, namely that of the Eunomians, or Anomoeans, that of the Arians, or Eudoxians, that of the Semi-Arians, or Pneumatomachi, that of the Sabellians, that of the Marcellians, that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.

The bishops of each diocese are not to extend their authority to Churches beyond their own boundaries, nor are they to confuse the Churches; but, according to the canons, the Bishop of Alexandria is to administer only the affairs of Egypt; the bishops of the East are to govern only the East, while preserving the prerogatives assigned by the Canons of Nicaea to the Church of Antioch; the bishops of the Asian Diocese are to administer only the affairs of the Asian Diocese; those of the Pontic Diocese only those of the Pontic Diocese; and those of the Thracian Diocese only those of the Thracian Diocese.

Unless invited, bishops are not to cross the boundaries of their dioceses for an ordination or for any other ecclesiastical administration. But, while the canon concerning the dioceses is to be observed, it is evident that, according to the decrees of Nicaea, the synod of each province shall administer the affairs of that province. As for the Churches of God among the barbarian nations, they are to be governed according to the custom that has prevailed since the time of the Fathers.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogatives of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome.

The most illustrious officials said:

“Let those most reverend bishops of the Asian and Pontic dioceses who subscribed to the document that has just been read declare whether they subscribed of their own accord, or whether some compulsion was brought to bear upon them.”

And those who came forward into the midst spoke as follows.

Diogenes, the most reverend Bishop of Cyzicus, said:

“I subscribed of my own accord, as being acceptable to God.”

Florentius, Bishop of Sardis, said:

“No compulsion whatsoever was brought to bear upon me; I subscribed voluntarily.”

Romanus, Bishop of Myra, said:

“I willingly consent to be under the throne of Constantinople, since he himself honoured me and himself ordained me. This appears just to me, and I subscribed of my own accord.”

Calogerus, Bishop of Claudiopolis, said:

“In accordance with the judgement of the one hundred and fifty most holy Fathers, I subscribed of my own accord, without compulsion.”

Selucus, Bishop of Amaseia, said:

“Before my time, three bishops had been ordained under this throne. Following their example, I likewise followed it and acted voluntarily, wishing to be under this throne.”

Eleutherius, Bishop of Chalcedon, said:

“Knowing that this throne of Constantinople possesses these rights both by the canons and by long-established custom, I subscribed with pleasure.”

Peter, Bishop of Gangra, said:

“Before my time, three bishops were ordained by the throne of the imperial city, and I likewise after them. Therefore I agreed, following the established custom, and I subscribed voluntarily.”

Nunechius, Bishop of Laodicea, said:

“The glory of the throne of Constantinople is our glory; for we also share in the honour that proceeds from it, since it also undertakes the care of us. We therefore approve that the metropolitan of each province should be ordained by that throne. Accordingly, I too subscribed willingly.”

Marinianus, Bishop of Synnada, said:

“Since those before me were ordained by the most holy throne of Constantinople, and I likewise, I subscribed voluntarily, because the canons also confer the prerogatives upon the most holy throne of Constantinople.”

Pergamius, Bishop of Antioch, said:

“I too subscribed of my own accord, and in every respect it is fitting for us to hold the most reverend Archbishop of the imperial New Rome in special honour and reverence, since he is an exceptional father. I ask only this: that if anything should be found to have been done, whether through ignorance on the part of his Holiness or through precipitancy, then, for the sake of his honour, the peace of the most holy Churches, and his good repute before God in the sight of all, these matters should be examined and safeguarded as before a father.”

Critonianus, Bishop of Aphrodisias, said:

“I subscribed of my own accord, following the purpose of the most holy Fathers and acknowledging my obligation to this throne, by which both I and those before me were ordained, and through which our Church has enjoyed every protection.”

Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, said:

“I subscribed willingly, because I myself read this canon to the most holy Pope in Rome, in the presence of the clergy of Constantinople, and he accepted it.”

Antiochus, Bishop of Sinope, said:

“I subscribed willingly, following my metropolitan and the Canon of the One Hundred and Fifty.”

The rest cried out:

“We subscribed willingly.”

We can see how the many decades spent in the strongest and wealthiest part of the Empire—an empire that, from the close of the Council, still had almost a thousand years of life to live, while in the West it would collapse within the lifetime of most of the Council’s participants, in AD 476, when the barbarian leader Odoacer deposed the young Emperor Romulus Augustulus—had transformed the mentality of the Church.

I do believe there was no malicious intent in granting the primacy of honour—which in practice amounted to a primacy of power, exercising real, though indirect, influence over the whole Church of the Eastern Empire—to New Rome, Constantinople.

Yet neither was there any foundation for it in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Before Nicaea, the principal sees of the Church were Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, whose authority rested on apostolic foundation and antiquity. Jerusalem enjoyed exceptional honour but exercised little administrative authority.

Nicaea (325) merely codified this existing order, confirming the ancient privileges of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, while granting Jerusalem honorary precedence alone. A decisive change came at Constantinople I (381), where the rank of Constantinople was justified not by apostolic origin but by its status as the imperial capital, New Rome. This marked the beginning of the transition from the traditional system of the ancient Apostolic sees to an imperial model of ecclesiastical order. Chalcedon (451) completed this development by greatly expanding Constantinople's jurisdiction and grounding its new prerogatives on the same political principle.

The most illustrious officials said:

“Now that the subscriptions have been read, and it has become manifest from the testimony of each of those who subscribed that they subscribed under no compulsion but of their own free will, what have the most reverend bishops who did not subscribe to say?”

The following exchange may seem, at first sight, to concern only a practical question of episcopal ordinations. Yet beneath the surface lies a deeper question: who possesses the ordinary authority to govern the Church — the ancient provincial structures of the East, or the increasingly influential imperial see of Constantinople?

Eusebius, Bishop of Ancyra, said:

“I have something of my own to say, without thereby prejudicing the common cause. That I am entirely free from any desire to perform ordinations I have already shown by my actions. For the most reverend bishop who has just given his testimony—I myself ordained his predecessor. Indeed, the whole city came to me at Ancyra and brought me their decree of election.

I answered them, saying: ‘I am not one of those who desire to perform ordinations,’ reminding them that the first, the second, and the third before him had all been ordained by the Bishop of Ancyra. I said to them: ‘Whatever you may say to me, I shall not depart from what is right.’

“Thereupon they went and appealed to the blessed Proclus.

And while he was speaking, Philip, presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, said:

“Your Reverence wrote concerning Callinicus; did not the blessed Proclus ordain Peter?”

Eusebius of Ancyra said:

“The blessed Proclus sent him to me, and I ordained him. All this I say not by way of self-defence, but as evidence of my own intention, lest anyone should infer from it that I am contradicting him or speaking against anyone. I went to Gangra and enthroned the bishop. As it happened, he died after only a few days.

Again, all the people of the city came to me and begged me to appoint another bishop. I gave them the same answer as now: that I have no desire to perform ordinations. Seeing my resolve in this matter, they came to Constantinople and brought with them the lord Peter, who has just given his testimony. Let this, then, stand as evidence of my intention, namely that I have no desire to perform ordinations.

The same bishop then, finding himself caught in the conflict between Old and New Rome, explicitly appealed for the abolition of the very practice of subordination to Constantinople!

I ask, moreover, that cities should not be impoverished because of ordinations. For if those elected by the city are not ordained within their own cities, after being approved by the provincial synod, their resources are exhausted. I know this from experience, since I had to pay many debts left by my predecessor.

Why so? Because the candidates and their delegations had to travel to the capital, maintain themselves there, and undergo additional procedures — placing a financial burden upon poorer sees. He even states that he himself had been forced to repay debts left by his predecessor.

Philip, presbyter, said:

“This has been abolished by the canons. It has been abolished by both the laws and the canons. The altars are now clean.”

Meaning: “That problem was real byt has already been dealt with; the irregularities have been removed, and the ecclesiastical order has been restored.”

The brave bishop gets silenced quickly:

Eusebius of Ancyra said:

“For God’s sake, the reputation of the most holy Archbishop Anatolius shines brightly. But no man is immortal.”

Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, said:

“By whom were you yourself ordained?”

Eusebius said:

“Here I have been caught to my own disadvantage: I was ordained by the blessed Proclus.”

Thalassius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, said:

“Let us go to our lord Archbishop Anatolius and settle this matter with him.”

As we can see, Eusebius of Ancyra does not present himself as a rival to Constantinople. On the contrary, he repeatedly insists that he has no personal desire to perform ordinations and that his concern is the preservation of the established ecclesiastical order and the welfare of the churches entrusted to him. No one openly rejects the authority of Constantinople, nor does anyone accuse Anatolius of Constantinople of acting unlawfully.

The significance of the exchange lies precisely in what remains unsaid.

Eusebius’ indirect argument is that episcopal ordinations had traditionally belonged to the proper ecclesiastical structures of each province, and that removing this authority from local bishops would place an unnecessary burden upon poorer churches. Under the language of practical concerns and pastoral necessity, however, the discussion reflects a deeper issue: the emergence of a new ecclesiastical reality shaped by the growing authority of the imperial capital and whether it is good.

The most glorious judges said:

“From what has been done, and from the testimony of each, we perceive that, according to the canons, the primacy and the pre-eminent honour are in every respect to be preserved for the God-beloved Archbishop of Elder Rome. We judge, however, that the most holy Archbishop of the royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, ought to enjoy the same prerogatives of honour, and that he should, by his own authority, have the right to ordain the metropolitans of the Asian, Pontic, and Thracian dioceses, in the following manner:

that from each metropolis, by the clergy, the founders, and the most distinguished men, together with all, or the majority, of the most reverend bishops of the province, the person whom the aforesaid shall judge worthy to be bishop of the metropolitan church shall be elected;

and that by all those who have made the election he shall be reported to the most holy Archbishop of the royal city of Constantinople, so that it may rest with him whether he wishes the person elected to come there to be ordained, or whether, by his permission, he should receive ordination in his own province.

The most reverend bishops of the individual cities, however, are to be ordained by all, or by the majority, of the most reverend bishops of the province, with the metropolitan giving confirmation, according to the existing canon of the Fathers; and the most holy Archbishop of the royal city of Constantinople is in no way to take part in those ordinations.

This is our determination. Let the holy and ecumenical Synod be pleased to declare its judgement concerning what has been proposed.”

What is striking in this formulation is the asymmetry between the two claims. The primacy of Rome — a primacy which, as we have seen, was understood not merely as a matter of honour but as carrying a corresponding authority — is treated as a given, something existing prior to the judgement of the council itself. The authority of Constantinople, by contrast, is presented as something established through a canonical decision, defined and granted within the framework of the council and by the authority of the imperial judges.

The most reverend bishops cried out:

“This is a just decision. This is what we all say. This pleases everyone. This is a just judgement. Let what has been decreed stand. This is a just decision. Everything has been rightly decreed. We beseech you, dismiss us. By the safety of the Emperors, dismiss us. We all abide by the decision; we all say the same.”

This is also a characteristic Byzantine formula.

It doesn’t literally mean “let us go for your safety.” It’s a sworn declaration of loyalty:

“For the sake of the emperors, let us go.”

In other words, the participants are addressing the imperial judges, emphasizing their respect for imperial authority and wishing to conclude the session.

Next come Lucentius’s concluding words.

I will quote them directly from the Greek and Latin, because both translations are extremely revealing. They reveal the growing tension over the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Imperial Church — a tension that, alas, was only destined to mount.

According to the Greek text:

Lucentius the bishop said:

“Our Apostolic Throne instructed us, while we were present, that everything should be transacted. Therefore, if anything was done yesterday before the tribunal contrary to the canons during our absence, we ask your Excellency to order whether it should, or should not, be annulled, lest any ground of contention against us remain in these records, but that it may be clearly known that we must report the matter to the Apostolic Bishop, who presides over the whole Church, so that he himself may be able to pronounce judgement either concerning the insult done to his own Throne or concerning the overthrow of the canons.”

The most glorious judges said:

“Everything that we have declared has been confirmed by the Synod.” — Οἱ ἐνδοξότατοι ἄρχοντες εἶπον · ὅσα διελαλήσαμεν, πάντα ἡ σύνοδος ἐκύρωσε.

According to the Latin text:

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop, vicar of the Apostolic See, said:

“The Apostolic See cannot be humiliated while we are present; and therefore whatever was done yesterday, in our absence, to the prejudice of the canons or the ecclesiastical regulations, we ask your Highness to order to be annulled; otherwise our protest shall stand against those proceedings, and let us know what we ought to report to the Apostolic man, the Pope of the universal Church, the chief bishop, so that he himself may pronounce judgement either concerning the injury done to his own See or concerning the overthrow of the canons.”

The most reverend John, bishop of Sebaste, said:

We all remain in your magnificent judgment.

The most glorious judges said:

“Everything that we have declared has been confirmed by the Synod.”

Yes, the Latin version mentions Bishop John of Sebaste, who takes the side of the Roman legates. But the essence remains unchanged: it was precisely the archontes of New Rome, the imperial officials and the leaders of the Council, who made the decision in favour of the position of Constantinople and the other bishops of the Empire, contrary to the will of Rome.

No one mocked the Romans for their claims, because the Apostolic See, both before and after Chalcedon, by virtue of its primacy, had deposed and excommunicated heretical patriarchs while defending orthodoxy, even those of the New Rome. The same thing happened at Chalcedon itself. No one directly denied this — including the emperor’s archontes, the noble judges. Yet it was precisely they who, following an imperial logic, increasingly began to replace the “old” legitimacy with a new one, appealing to a conciliar decision, the decision of the majority, and a tradition which at that time had not even existed for eighty years.

Boniface, presbyter, holding the place of the Apostolic See of Old Rome, said:

“Leo, my lord, of the Apostolic Faith of Rome, sent a letter to the most holy Synod. Command that it be received and read.”

Let it be read.

The most glorious judges said:

“Let the letter of Leo, the most blessed Archbishop of Rome, be read, which was delivered by Julian, the most reverend bishop of the city of Cos, acting as representative both for him and for the Apostolic See itself, together with the authentic Roman letter and its interpretation.”

Constantine, the most reverend secretary, read it as follows:

Leo, the bishop of the city of Rome, to the holy Synod assembled at Nicaea [the council was moved from Nicaea to Chalcedon before it began].

I had indeed prayed, dearly beloved, on behalf of my dear colleagues that all the Lord’s priests would persist in united devotion to the Catholic Faith, and that no one would be misled by favor or fear of secular powers into departing from the way of Truth. But since many things often produce the need for repentance and God’s mercy transcends the faults of the guilty, and punishment is postponed so that reformation may take place, we must welcome our most merciful Emperor’s council, convened with pious intent. He has desired your holy brotherhood to assemble for the purpose of destroying the devil’s traps and restoring the peace of the Church, while showing such respect for the rights and dignity of the most blessed Apostle Peter as to invite us by letter to attend your venerable Synod in person. That is not possible given either the needs of the times or any existing precedent. Yet in these brothers — Paschasinus and Lucentius, bishops, and Boniface and Basil, presbyters, who have been sent by the Apostolic See — let your brotherhood consider that I am presiding at the Synod. For my presence is not withdrawn from you: I am now represented by my delegates, and I have long been truly with you in proclaiming the Catholic Faith. You who cannot help knowing what we believe in accordance with ancient tradition cannot doubt what we desire.

Therefore, dearest brothers, let all attempts to undermine the divinely inspired Faith be entirely put down. Let the empty unbelief of heretics be laid to rest. Let nothing be defended that may not rightly be believed. For in accordance with the authoritative statements of the Gospel, the utterances of the prophets, and the teaching of the Apostles, with the greatest fullness and clarity in the letter we sent to Bishop Flavian of blessed memory [the Tome], it has been laid down what the faithful and pure confession is regarding the mystery of our Lord Jesus Christ’s Incarnation.

But because we know full well that through malicious jealousy the affairs of many churches have been thrown into chaos, and a large number of bishops have been driven from their sees for refusing to accept the heresy and sent into exile — while others have been placed in their positions even though they are still alive — to these wounds above all the healing of justice must be applied. No one must be deprived of what is rightfully his so that someone else may enjoy it. For if, as we hope, all abandon their error, no one need lose his present rank, and those who have labored for the Faith should have their rights restored with every privilege. Let the decrees specifically directed against Nestorius from the earlier Synod of Ephesus [the Council of Ephesus, 431] — at which Bishop Cyril of holy memory presided — retain their full force, so that the heresy then condemned does not take encouragement simply because Eutyches is now being rightfully condemned. For the purity of the Faith and doctrine that we proclaim in the same spirit as our holy Fathers equally condemns and opposes both the Nestorian and the Eutychian error along with their supporters. Farewell in the Lord, dearest brothers.

Dated June 26, in the consulship of the illustrious Adelfius (451).

The end.

What followed?

In their address to the Emperor, the bishops and the judges of the Council explicitly affirmed that Leo had introduced nothing new against the faith of Nicaea, but had followed the teaching of the holy Fathers:

“The most holy Archbishop Leo composed his letter not introducing anything new and not acting against the faith established at Nicaea, but following the holy Fathers…”

They presented the Roman See not as an innovator, but as a defender of the truth:

“God provided for us a champion and established the one who presides over the Romans for victory, surrounding him on every side with the teachings of truth.”

Leo was portrayed in continuity with the Apostle Peter himself — as one who, with the same zeal, draws every understanding back to God. His teaching was defended against the accusation of being foreign or unknown to the canons, while the Nicene faith was acknowledged as the fundamental norm of the Church.

The Council also explained that the Church does not introduce novelties when confronting heresies: she does not add to the faith because something is lacking, but gives the necessary answers to those innovations which others have introduced against it.

And yet, despite these solemn affirmations, what followed was a gradual departure from the faith manifested at Chalcedon, the condemnations of those who resisted the decisions of Chalcedon by the Pope of Rome (St Felix II), the attempts of emperors to subject the Apostolic See to their political authority, then the Great Schism finally came. — all of this would and did fill volumes.

For now, though, I have a question.

Standing there at Chalcedon by having read this particular act, listening to the legates of Leo the Great defending the ancient constitution of the Church against the growing ambitions of the imperial capital — would one truly have stood with those who opposed them?

Or would one instead have sided with Emperor Marcian’s imperial officials, who forced through the Twenty-Eighth Canon and enlarged the authority of the bishop of the capital, basing their case not on apostolic tradition but on the political prestige of a city? Where, then, do we stand in this scene? With the poorer provincial bishops, increasingly drawn into dependence upon Constantinople and literal debt merely to secure episcopal succession from the imperial capital — that wealthy newcomer to the neighbourhood convinced that everything should be bought, managed, or imposed by him? Or with the Archbishop of Constantinople himself, this self-croclaimed Universal Patriarch, calmly watching his jurisdiction and influence expand for now reason other than… Roman imperial might and power?

That is the question Chalcedon still poses, althouth the Elder Rome stands on the rock, whereas the New Rome ceased to exist.