As Protestantism has separated itself from the Catholic Church, it has found it necessary to find historical reasons to justify that separation. As a consequence there has arisen a kind of alternative history that differs from the accepted historical reality. This alternative history has escaped the control of its creators and has gone on evolving in its form and application. Even those who are far from being Christians have accepted these revisions of history and resort to them to attack the whole Christian faith.

Let us take, for example, the works of Dan Brown, which the author himself presents as fiction while claiming that the narrative has a genuine historical basis. For those with a knowledge of history, his claims of historicity can be quite laughable; yet for those lacking historical background, such works can lead to serious confusion.

Among the distortions promoted by alternative history, it is common to present the thesis that the papacy did not exist at the beginning of Christendom. In this chapter, which I have written with the help of two good friends (Beatriz Aparicio and Alex Grandet), we set out to analyze specifically certain claims that have been made mistakenly, seeking to use Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon to disqualify the primacy of the bishop of Rome over the whole Church.

Canon XXVIII According to the Alternative History

César Vidal Manzanares, in his Dictionary of Patristics, writes:

“…Canon XXVIII of this council granted Constantinople the same rank as Rome, which was considered unacceptable by Leo, causing him to delay his endorsement of the final decisions of the council and to deny legitimacy to the said canon.”[1]

In a well-known Internet debate forum, I received the following comment:

“…The Fourth Ecumenical Council, that of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), placed the patriarch of the East, the bishop of Constantinople, on a footing of perfect equality with his colleague of Rome.”[2]

Another participant in the same forum, citing the Protestant historian Justo L. González, wrote:

“One must take into account that, as the Protestant scholar Justo L. González says, of this bishop Leo, ‘it has been said that he was truly the first “pope” in the current sense of the term’ since he genuinely believed himself to be the successor of Peter with legal and doctrinal authority over the whole Church, even though the Eastern sector of Christianity never fully acknowledged such aspirations.”[3]

The same participant also mentioned:

“And as for the confirmation of the dogmatic decisions of these first seven councils, the official ratification of Rome was never needed for them to be recognized as valid.”[4]

Summarizing these comments, we see that there are Protestants who see in Canon XXVIII a proof against the primacy of the bishop of Rome and his jurisdiction over the whole Church. The error of the alternative history is already found in Protestant reference books, such as that of César Vidal Manzanares, and with time it will continue to spread to other sources.

What Does Canon XXVIII Actually Say?

In order not to enter into controversy over the best translation of the canon, I have placed it as transcribed by Father Gorazd (Orthodox), translator of The Canonical Status of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodox Church, a work by the Orthodox Archbishop Gregory Afonsky.

“Following in all things the decisions of the Holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. 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 (isa presbeia) 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; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans and bishops of the aforesaid Dioceses, as well as those among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.”

An alternative translation of the text that concerns us says:

“…The Fathers have agreed that the new Rome, honoured (by the residence) of the emperor and of the senate, and enjoying the same privileges as the old imperial city, must have the same advantages in the ecclesiastical order and be second after her.”[5]

All these sources affirm that Constantinople was seeking to obtain — not the same place as Rome — but second place after it. When I asked why he thought that Canon XXVIII granted Constantinople the same place as Rome, among other arguments he cited the Patristic and Christian Antiquity Dictionary, which reports: “…and problems relating to the relations among the various patriarchates of the East were discussed. In this context Canon XXVIII was approved, which insisted on the second position of Constantinople, the new Rome, behind Rome, despite the protests of the Roman delegates, for whom this ranking damaged the effective Roman primacy; Leo would not in fact sign this canon. With these discussions the council was closed on November 1st, again in the presence of the emperor.”[6]

Even this dictionary — cited by my Protestant interlocutor — is acknowledging what the very text of the canon says explicitly: that Constantinople sought the second place behind Rome.

Exposition of the Canonical Context

An important and essential point for understanding the context of the situation is that Byzantium has now become Constantinople — the new capital of the Roman Empire — and there arises the desire on the part of some bishops to equate the new capital of the Empire with Rome. This had already been attempted at the previous Council of Constantinople in the year 381 A.D., whose Canon III — which was not received by Rome — said: “The bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.” The problem arose from the erroneous belief that the Roman primacy owed its origin to Rome as the capital city of the Empire and not to the bishop of Rome, the legitimate successor of the Apostle St. Peter. Of this latter point there are clear testimonies in the writings of St. Clement of Rome, Tertullian, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Eusebius, etc.

Thus, contrary to the Protestant opinion, what was rejected was the pretension of Constantinople, which sought to extend its jurisdiction over the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace by placing itself behind Rome. This Canon did not obtain the confirmation of the Pope, as Protestants rightly acknowledge, but that does not imply a rejection of the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

Someone might ask: why then did the Pope reject a canon that did not injure the primacy of the bishop of Rome? The answer is simple. Although the fathers of Chalcedon contented themselves with the second place, holding a primacy over the East, this injured the prerogatives of the patriarchal sees of Antioch and Alexandria. It is easy to understand the rejection of this novelty by the papal legates, since, additionally, it could be understood as the confirmation of a tradition that would give Constantinople autonomy and independence in the future. It is important to point out that the Council itself in full asked the Pope for the approval of that canon:

“We ask you to deign to give your confirmation to this decision, and just as we submit to you, who are the head, we trust that the head will grant to the children what is fitting.”[7]

“In order to prove that we have acted neither out of partiality in favor of anyone, nor out of a spirit of opposition against anyone, we make known to you our whole conduct so that you may confirm it and give your assent.”[8]

The Historical Context

If the approval of the bishop of Rome were not necessary to confirm the decisions of the councils, as certain Protestant sources affirm, why send this missive to the Pope requesting it? Especially when we are speaking of — no less than — more than 520 bishops (this is the largest participation up to that time in an ecumenical council). For greater emphasis we should mention that, apart from the papal delegates and two bishops from Africa, practically all were Easterners.

The historian Pierre Batiffol says in this regard:

“This synodal letter of the Council of Chalcedon is evidently most suggestive. It seeks to present Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon as a simple confirmation of Canon III of Constantinople; yet one must not forget that the bishops of the Council of 381 legislated for the East without requiring anything of Pope Damasus — neither collaboration nor confirmation. In 451, by contrast, Canon XXVIII, voted by the council, approved by the emperor, by the senate, by the city of Constantinople, is considered a failure by the legates of Pope Leo, and the council writes to the Pope to demand that he confirm it — in the terms of deference to authority which we have already seen, and that authority is truly a sovereignty. Without Rome nothing is done of all that must be done for faith and order. The See of Constantinople awaits from the Apostolic See the confirmation of its rights, in acknowledgment of the zeal that Rome has always shown for the cause of religion and concord. We wish to emphasize, therefore, that this primacy — to which Constantinople pays homage — is in no way based on consideration of the historical and political rank of the city of Rome, but solely on the apostolic privilege of the Roman see.”[9]

Another piece of evidence in favor of the recognition of the Petrine primacy on the part of the bishops who took part in the council is found in its acts.

“This is the faith of the Fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! We must believe it! Anathema to him who does not believe it! Peter has spoken to us through Leo… This is the true Faith.”[10]

“For the most holy and most blessed Leo, archbishop of great and ancient Rome, through us, and through this present most holy Council, together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Apostle Peter, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the orthodox faith…”[11]

As if that were not enough, Anatolius himself, Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to Pope Leo I apologizing and explaining Canon XXVIII:

“Regarding those things which the Universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favour of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be assured that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the Church of Constantinople who were eager for it, and it was they, supported equally by the priests of those places, who agreed to it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Beatitude. Therefore, let Your Holiness know with all certainty that I did nothing to carry the situation further…”[12]

Here we have, from the very hand of the Patriarch of Constantinople, a summary of the situation very different from the one seen from the Protestant perspective, and one that confirms that it was Constantinople that sought the second place. The said canon was rejected by the Pope, and his ruling was abided by at the time.

The Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore comments on this matter:

“The matter was thus settled; and for the following six centuries all the Churches of the East referred only to the 27 canons of the Council of Chalcedon — Canon XXVIII having been declared null and void by the veto of Rome. This is confirmed by all the Greek historians: Theodorus Lector (c. 551), John Scholasticus (c. 550), and Dionysius Exiguus (c. 550), and by Roman popes such as St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Symmachus (c. 500) — all of whom speak of the 27 canons of the Council of Chalcedon. […] It was the Monophysite heretics who attempted to exploit the situation of Canon XXVIII by claiming that Pope Leo had rejected the authority of the Council. […] Sixteen hundred years later, the same attempt is being made…”[13]

To conclude, I should like to examine the claim of the Protestant historian Justo González who, speaking of Pope Leo I, says “it has been said that he was truly the first ‘pope’ in the current sense of the term”. And although there is abundant evidence demonstrating that this is false, a few examples affirming the primacy of the bishop of Rome, written long before the papacy of Leo I, will suffice.

“Bishop Hosius said: Also this, that a bishop shall not pass from his own province to another province where there are bishops, unless he be invited by his brethren, lest it seem that we are closing the door of charity. Provision must also be made for this: If in any province any bishop has a dispute against a brother bishop, let neither of them call bishops from another province — and if any bishop has been judged in any cause and believes he has a good case for the judgment to be renewed, if it please you, let us honor the memory of the most holy Apostle Peter: by those who examined the cause or by the bishops who dwell in the neighboring province, let it be written to the Bishop of Rome; and if he judge that the judgment ought to be renewed, let it be renewed and let him appoint judges. But if it be proven that the case is not such that what has been done should be reopened, what he has decreed shall stand confirmed. Does this please all? The Council answered affirmatively. Bishop Gaudentius said: If it please you, to this sentence, full of holiness, which you have pronounced, there should be added: When any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of the bishops who dwell in the neighboring places, and declares that his case is to be handled in the city of Rome, another bishop shall by no means be ordained in his see after the appeal of him whose deposition is in question, until the cause shall have been determined by the judgment of the Bishop of Rome. Bishop Hosius said: It also pleased us that if a bishop has been accused, and the bishops of the same region have gathered and deposed him from his rank, and he, as it seems, has appealed and taken refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman Church, and the latter should wish to hear him and deem it just that the examination be renewed — let him deign to write to those bishops who dwell in the neighboring and adjacent province that they themselves investigate everything diligently and define it according to the faith of truth. And if he who entreats that his case be heard again should, by his entreaties, move the Roman bishop to send a presbyter, it shall be in the power of the bishop to do what he chooses or judges right: and if he decree that persons are to be sent who shall judge in the presence of the bishops, having the authority of him who sent them, it shall be as he chooses. But if he believes that the bishops are sufficient to bring a matter to conclusion, he shall do what in his most wise judgment he shall determine.”[14]

“We do not deny the fitting reply to your consultation, for, in consideration of our duty, we have no possibility of neglecting it or keeping silent — we, to whom falls a greater zeal than to all for the Christian religion. We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; or rather, the blessed Apostle Peter bears them in us, who, as we trust, protects and defends us in all things as heirs of his administration.”[15]

“In seeking the things of God… keeping the examples of the ancient tradition… you have truly strengthened… the vigor of your religion, since you approved that the matter was to be referred to our judgment, knowing what is owed to the Apostolic See — inasmuch as all of us who are placed in this position desire to follow the Apostle from whom the very episcopate and all authority of this name have descended. Following him, we know alike how to condemn the evil and to approve the laudable. And, moreover, keeping by priestly duty the institutions of the Fathers, you do not hold that they should be trampled upon, for they decreed, not by human but by divine sentence, that whatever might be treated in whatever province, however separate and remote, should not be considered settled until it had come to the knowledge of this See, so that every just decision might be confirmed by its full authority and that thence all the Churches might take (as if all waters came from their primal source and flowed through the various regions of the whole world as pure streams from one uncorrupted fountain) what they must command, whom they must cleanse, and whom this water, worthy of pure bodies, must avoid as stained by filth that cannot be washed away.”[16]

“Although the tradition of the Fathers has rendered the Apostolic See so authoritative that none dare contest its judgment — and this has always been observed by the canons and rules, and ecclesiastical discipline, which still holds in its laws, has rendered to the name of Peter, from whom she herself also descends, the reverence due to him… — so that Peter, being the head of such great authority, and having the adherence of all the ancients confirmed in succession, the Roman Church is confirmed both by human and divine laws — and it does not escape your notice that we hold his place and possess also the authority of his name, as you yourselves know full well, dearest brethren, and as priests ought to know — nevertheless, having such authority that none can appeal from our sentence, we have done nothing which we have not voluntarily brought to your knowledge by our letters… not because we were ignorant of what should be done, or because we did anything which, being against the good of the Church, should give displeasure…”[17]

“By the Lord’s direction, it belongs to the blessed Apostle Peter the mission received from Him, of having care of the Universal Church. And in fact, Peter knows, by the testimony of the Gospel (Mt. 16:18), that the Church has been founded upon him. And never can his honour feel free of responsibilities, since it is certain that the governance of the Church depends upon his decisions. All this justifies that our attention extend to these places of the East which, by virtue of the mission entrusted to Us, are in a certain manner before our eyes… Far be it from the priests of the Lord to incur the reproach of putting themselves in contradiction with the doctrine of our elders by attempting a new usurpation, knowing that they have in a special way as their challenger him in whom Christ deposited the fullness of the priesthood, and against whom no one can rise without forfeiting the possibility of dwelling in the Kingdom of Heaven. To thee, He said, I will give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven [Mt. 16:19]. No one shall enter there without the grace of him who holds the keys. Thou art Peter, He said, and upon this rock I will build my Church [Mt. 16:18]. Consequently, whoever desires to see himself distinguished before God with priestly dignity — since God is reached through acceptance by Peter, in whom, it is certain, as we have recalled before, the Church of God was founded — must be meek and humble of heart [Mt. 11:29], lest the contumacious disciple begin to suffer the punishment of that teacher whose pride he has imitated…”[18]

This is testimony from the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, held twenty years before the Council of Chalcedon:

“It is undoubted, nay, it has been known to all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from the hands of our Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and to him has been given the power of binding and loosing sins; and he, in his successors, lives and judges even to the present day and forever.”[19]

It is necessary to highlight the importance of these precedents, since they constitute real and historical testimonies confirming that the primacy of the bishop of Rome was recognized by the whole Church.

The problem that alternative history brings to the cause of Christianity is evident. Most harmful is the moral failure it incurs by using inaccurate information to support its own doctrines[20]. In the second place, alternative history presents to the non-Christian a panorama of disagreement and confusion that does not favor his acceptance of the Gospel. Over time, the various revisionisms have spread this erroneous version of history, which has promoted divisions among believers and scandal among unbelievers, bringing as a result the ruin of many souls. The Christian must “abide in the truth” as Jesus has commanded us, as an inescapable condition of our salvation, for what fellowship have light and darkness, truth and falsehood?[21] Those who employ alternative history to affirm their own doctrines or to overturn the original doctrines of the faith reveal their own error, imperiling their own salvation and that of others.

Notes

  1. César Vidal Manzanares, Dictionary of Patristics, Editorial Verbo Divino, Navarra, Spain ↩
  2. Roberto Islas Montes at labibliaweb.com ↩
  3. Taken from the same forum at labibliaweb.com ↩
  4. Ibid. ↩
  5. Karl Joseph von Hefele- Henri Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles t. II b, p. 815 ↩
  6. Instituto Patrístico Agustiniano, Diccionario Patrístico y de la Antigüedad Cristiana Vol 1, Article: Calcedonia. Ed. A. Di Berardino, publ. Sígueme, Salamanca 1991-1992, p. 347, cited in the same discussion forum labibliaweb.com ↩
  7. Inter Leonis Epist. XCVIII, PL LIV col. 960. ↩
  8. Karl Joseph von Hefele- Henri Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles t. II b, p. 837 ↩
  9. Pierre Batiffol, Le Siège apostolique, p. 564-565. ↩
  10. Acts of the Council, Session 2. ↩
  11. Acts of the Council, Session 3. ↩
  12. Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Letter 132 ↩
  13. Mark Bonocore, The Council of Chalcedon and the Papacy ↩
  14. Council of Sardica (A.D. 343), Canons III-V | Eccl. Occid. Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima I, fasc. 2, pars 3, 492 ss. Enchiridion Fontium Historiae Ecclesiasticae Antiquae, 550. ↩
  15. Letter of Siricius, Ad decessorem, to Himerius, Bishop of Tarragona, February 10, 385. | Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum 624. Regesta Pontificum Romanorum a Condita Ecclesia ad a. p. Chr. n. 1198, 2ª ed., 255. Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina. 13, 1132 C. Mansi III 655. Conciliorum Collectio Regia Maxima (Labbei et Cossartii) sive: Acta Conciliorum et Epistolae Decretales ac Constitutiones Summorum Pontificum, 847 C. ↩
  16. Letter In requirendis, to the African bishops, January 27, 417. | Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum 888 C. Regesta Pontificum Romanorum a condita Ecclesia, 321. Patrologiae Cursus Completus, 20. Mansi III 1071. ↩
  17. Letter Quamvis Patrum traditio to the African bishops, March 21, 418. | Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum a S. Clemente I Usque ad Innocentium III, 944. Regesta Pontificum Romanorum a Condita Ecclesia, 342. Patrologiae Cursus Completus 20, 676 A. Mansi IV 366. Annales Ecclesiastici de Caesaris Baronii, 418 n. 4. ↩
  18. Letter Manet Beatum of Boniface I to Rufus and other bishops of Macedonia, etc., March 11, 422. | Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum a S. Clemente I usque ad Innocentium III, 1035. Patrologiae Cursus Completus, 776. Das Apostolische Symbol, 363. Mansi VIII 754. ↩
  19. Council of Ephesus, 431. Speech of Philip, Legate of the Roman Pontiff, in Session III: Enchiridion Symbolorum (Denzinger), 112. ↩
  20. John 8:44; 14:6 ↩
  21. 2 Corinthians 6:14 ↩