Speaking of this oros of the Fourth Council, we pronounced the word "miracle." This is not for rhetoric. This should be felt by every conscientious historian, who delves into the complexity of the partiality of the contending parties, the ambitions of religion and politics, and, finally, the differences in racial mentality and language. How did this bubbling cauldron, ready to explode and only increase chaos (the Ephesian Councils of 431 and 449 were recent examples of this), suddenly flow a bright stream of wise, reconciling doctrine? How did the muddy water purify, according to the Serbian proverb, after passing through the "prez dvanadeset kamena"? It was as if the unwound schoolchildren were put in a punishment cell and forced to write an exercise they had not completed. And so God blessed this compulsion. It turned out to be for the good. "For it is pleasing to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28), as it is customary to repeat in such cases, following the example of the Apostles. Thus, in prose, the blindness of passions, sins and weaknesses of history, bright drops of truth are endured and prayed for, so the Holy Spirit deigns to overshadow with revelation from above the conscientious searches of the human spirit. The more sober and accurate the knowledge of historical reality, the more miraculously the ray of Divine Revelation looms against the background of this prose. A miracle for the eyes of faith. There are no miracles for stupid and blind disbelief anyway.

Both the prophets and the seer "were in the Spirit" for one moment, and then again, as earth-born, they submitted to the pull of earthly narrow-mindedness. In the same way, the collective of the Fathers of the Council, which for a moment rose to the grace-filled height of attaining the wise oros, in subsequent moments in judgments on further particular questions again turns into blind, obsessed individuals.

Meetings on 26, 27 and 28 October were devoted to administrative, disciplinary and personal matters. Let's talk about them briefly. Bl. Theodoret, who had already been acquitted by Rome, also sought justification by the council. He was the brains of the Antiochian school, which the conciliar majority considered simply Nestorianism. Theodoret wanted to justify before everyone the great theological work of his entire life, but they did not want to listen to him. Tired and spiritually crushed by what they had now decided to do, the Council Fathers, still poisoned by the poison of Monophysitism, when they saw Theodoret, they cried out: "There is no need for any reasoning! Anathematize Nestorius, and that's enough!" Theodorite: "What is the use of this until I prove to you that I am Orthodox?" The crowd of bishops shouted: "You see, he is a Nestorian! Get out of heretic! Say clearly: St. The Virgin is the Mother of God and anathema to Nestorius and to anyone who does not call Mary the Mother of God and divides Christ into two sons!" But in front of a crowd that had lost patience, this was impossible. Theodoret in despair, to put it trivially, "waved his hand" and pronounced the required anathema. "Well, if you are Orthodox, then you are worthy of the department! This unwillingness of the episcopate to delve into and understand the Orthodox form of Antiochian theology made the bishops blind and ignorant of the temptations of the familiar form of Alexandrian theology, almost unprotected from the infection of Monophysitism. And for this blindness, life took heavy revenge. 250 years of stubborn Monophysite reaction, combined with a non-Russian nationalist reaction against Hellenism, weakened and belittled the Byzantine Church and have left traces and scars in its dogmatism, its piety and its creativity to this day.

Theodoret was to be followed in front of the council by his double in fate in the era of the dictatorship of Dioscorus, Iva of Edessa. He was interrogated about a sensational letter to Mara, Bishop of Ardashir, in which St. Cyril was accused of Monophysitism. Willow's answer was undeniable. This was until 433, when Cyril yielded to the Antiochians and signed a general conciliatory confession with them. But the members of the council again did not want to delve into the essence of Antiochian theology. They were only interested in the anathema against Nestorius, which, of course, Iva pronounced. The impression remained that Theodoret and Iva were Nestorians. But, as always happens in a heated party atmosphere, this did not in the least calm the suspicion of the Monophysite masses and their leaders. Te decided: "You see, in order to divert eyes, Nestorius (who was still alive) was anathematized, and his old friends, Theodoret and Iva, were acquitted. Therefore, Nestorius won. Down with the Council of Chalcedon and its head, Pope Leo!" is the slogan of the long anti-Chalcedonian movement.

Even the high official spheres weakened themselves by the fact that they themselves were not free from the old "Dioscorus disease." A characteristic documentary imprint of this disease is the clerical forgery in the text of the Chalcedonian Oros itself, as it was published in print according to the most ancient and authoritative originals. In it we now read the "Dioscorus" insertion "of two natures" instead of "of two natures". The self-evidence of the forgery, in addition to the essence of the matter, is documented by the fact that all the ancient patristic quotations of the oros, without exception, contain, as is to be expected, "in two natures."

At the meeting of October 26, the question of the borders of the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem was resolved. Juvenal, thanks to his opportunism, managed to significantly expand his small patriarchate at the expense of the borders of Antioch. The latter was left with the so-called Two Phoenicia (corresponding to today's Lebanon and Syria) plus the indefinite "Arabia". and Jerusalem received "three Palestines" with three metropolitan centers: Caesarea (by the sea), Scythopolis (southern Palestine) and Petra (in Transjordan).

The last two questions about the boundaries of the patriarchates turned out to be quite easy, because they had already been prepared by life. But there was a question of the same category, incomparably more delicate and deeply touching on the traditional concepts of the norms of the supreme administration of the church. This is the question of the canonical powers of the Archbishop of Constantinople in the capital. Against the background of the collapse of the moral authority of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which turned out to be guilty of patronizing heresy, the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch managed to confirm their privileges. It was the turn to determine the privileges of Constantinople. As early as the 3rd canon of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 (which in 451 was not yet recognized in Rome as ecumenical), the archbishop of Constantinople was confirmed "the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome." Here is the full text of this brief but famous canon: "Let the bishop of Constantinople have the privilege of honor according to the bishop of Rome, because this city is the New Rome." Thus, the honor and place of the See of Constantinople were established on a political basis. We know from later history that this motivation for exaltation was unpleasant to other diocesan apostolic sees. But the metropolitan advantage of Constantinople, even over Rome, not to mention other centers, grew irresistibly in the natural-political order. These advantages floated into the hands of the capital's archbishop by themselves, without any effort on his part. All that remained was to state them and legitimize them post factura, as the creation of life itself. These questions were put on the agenda of the meeting on October 31, which was considered very mundane, non-ceremonial, as if post scriptum to the great deed that had been left behind. Apparently, it was not without diplomatic intent that the meeting proceeded "at home", without the participation of Roman legates and not under the chairmanship of senators. It was decided to legalize the practice that had arisen, when the bishops of the dioceses neighboring the capital – Thrace (on the European side) and Pontus and Asia (on the Asia Minor) – almost did not sue their metropolitans, but preferred to resort to the court of the imperial court, which, observing canonical decency, transferred the purely ecclesiastical and hierarchical content of the litigation to the archpastoral court of the capital archbishop. Thus, the prestige of these three neighboring dioceses was, as it were, entirely created by Constantinople. The bishop of the capital, placed by Constantine the Great within the old Metropolis of Heraclius, in the square of the new capital, who had not previously had a normal diocesan territory, quickly acquired for his patriarchate by means of alienation a fairly vast area of the three dioceses mentioned above, which had died out in his bosom, without touching the boundaries of the influence of the patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. There was nothing to be said against this already established factual order. It was recorded by the assembly in canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council without any objections. The Greek episcopate, tragically divided on dogmatic questions, was unanimous and, even more profoundly, unanimous in recognizing the national-religious value of the authority of its native, Christian, henceforth chrismated by the Church, imperial power and its exclusive world ecumenical unity. In the rays and aura of this sacred power, the basileus quickly grew and became, as it were, an inseparable double from it, and the authority of the metropolitan patriarch. To belittle it would be absurd for Greek self-consciousness. The Roman criticism of the foundations and scope of the prestige of the Archbishop of Constantinople was heard without objection, but also without the slightest sympathy. The Greeks were not anti-papists and anti-Romans. They recognized the due honor of the popes and Rome. But they were jealously offended when they sensed from the Latins disrespect for the honor and glory of their Constantinople head of the church. This offended the filial, family pride in the God-crowned fatherland of their native basileus and the patriarch who headed the single state-church organism next to him. Here are two religious-political psychology that hopelessly diverged.

In this case, Archbishop Anatoly, as it were, threw off his Cyril-Dioscorus origin and turned into a Constantinople pur sang (by blood). the entire Greek episcopate was with him. They believed that Pope Leo should be fully satisfied with his diplomatic victory, and this was an opportune moment for the Romans to gladly subscribe to the fait accompli, that is, to the privileges generally recognized in the Greek East as archbishop of the imperial capital.

Here is the letter of this 28th Chalcedonian canon: "Following in all things the definitions of the Holy Fathers and recognizing the canon of the 150 most God-loving bishops who were in the council (381) in the days of the pious memory of Theodosius in the reigning city of Constantinople, New Rome, we determine the same and decree the privileges of the most holy church of Constantinople, the New Rome.

For the throne of ancient Rome, as befits it, was given precedence by the Fathers, because it was a reigning city. Following the same motive, 150 most God-loving bishops granted the same privileges to the most holy see of New Rome, justly judging that the city, which had received the honor of being the city of the king and the senate, and having equal privileges with ancient imperial Rome, would accordingly be exalted in ecclesiastical affairs and would become second only to it.

And it is only on this basis that the metropolitans of the districts of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, as well as the bishops of the foreigners of the above-mentioned districts, let them be ordained at the Holy See of the most holy Church of Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the above-mentioned districts with the bishops of these districts must ordain the bishops of the dioceses, as prescribed by the divine canons. and the metropolitans of the above-mentioned districts themselves should be ordained, as has already been said, by the Archbishop of Constantinople after the concordant election (on the spot) has been made according to custom and presented (to Constantinople)."

The question of the advantages of the See of Constantinople was raised as a consequence of the mistakes of imperial policy from the point of view of its own interests. By allowing the Bishop of Alexandria to fight against the Bishop of Constantinople on the basis of dogmaticism, the imperial power gained in the person of Dioscorus a political opponent. Now it was decided that the emperor should take the reins of church government more firmly into his hands. and, consequently, he elevated his metropolitan bishop next to him, and did not humiliate his prestige before other popes (Alexandria and Rome), as Constantinople had hitherto unwisely and frivolously done. According to the very apt judgment of Professors F. A. and S. A. Ternovsky, the Greeks experienced, not without embarrassment and a kind of fright, the decisive, and one might say, the overwhelming role at the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the true leader of Orthodox thought, Pope Leo. Fearing lest they should belittle before Rome not only their dogmatic, but also their canonical honor, which Constantinople had recently humiliated with obvious frivolity before Alexandria in the case of Dioscorus, and before that in the case of Chrysostom. Learning of the decision, of course, since it was not a secret, the Roman legates demanded a general meeting of the council on the very next day, November 1. It was the last plenary meeting. All three legates spoke. Bishop Paskhazin, in general, protested the decree, which later became known as the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Bishop Lucentius (Lucentius) reproached him for forgetting the 6th Nicene Canon, where the cathedra of Alexandria was placed in second place. The presbyter Boniface recalled the order given to the legates by the pope: not to allow any encroachment on the decisions of the Nicene Fathers and to defend the privileges of the see of Rome, rejecting any reference to the fame of any cities (an allusion to the New Rome). They read the 6th Nicene Canon, which did not answer the new question about the rank of Constantinople, for in 325 there was no Constantinople cathedra itself. But the addition was dear to the Latins: "The Roman Church has always had primacy," an addition which Roman Catholic scholarship itself considers apocryphal (G. Bardy, op. cit., p. 239). And without any falsity, it did not occur to anyone at that time to object to the universally recognized primacy of the authority of the Roman cathedra. But the Romans objected to the inevitable new, also organic fact of the special privileges of the bishop of the capital of the empire. They can be rejected only by rejecting the theocratic union of church and state. and in affirming this union, it is impossible to deny the role of the second bishop in the twofold empire for the bishop of the real capital, while the first place without any disputes or doubts was forever recognized for the ideal capital, ancient Rome, apart from even a purely ecclesiastical foundation, the primacy of the Apostle Peter, which was also not denied by anyone. But the concerned representatives of Rome saw in this matter a direct insult to the primacy of the apostolic see. Bishop Lucentius declared: "The apostolic see should not be humiliated in our presence. Therefore, everything that was done yesterday in our absence contrary to the canonical rules, we ask the supreme power to repeal. If not, let our protest be included in the acts of the council. We know what exactly must be reported to the apostolic bishop, the first in the whole church, so that he may judge the insult inflicted on his see and the violation of the canons." This formulation is a direct statement of the legates' appeal to the pope on the 28th canon of the council. The legates doubted whether the metropolitans of Pontus and Asia freely agreed to these supreme rights of Constantinople. Te claimed that yes, freely. Although Eusebius of Ancyra and Thalassius of Caesarea-Cappadocia were not delighted with the confirmation of the advantages of the capital, they did not want and could not identify with the "Romans" in this protest against the Second Rome. Of course, the 28th canon was later rejected by Pope Leo and was never recognized by the Roman Church. Only in the latest editions of the Corpus juris canonici [40] is it published separately, for information, as a historical document.

This protest-appeal was heard without any discussion, as an indisputably legitimate act. And the representatives of the imperial power immediately closed this last session of the council.

But the court, together with the Archbishop of Constantinople and the Greek bishops in general, was interested in softening the mood of Pope Leo and, if possible, getting him to recognize the 28th canon. A decent reason for this was revealed in the procedure of the pope's "approval" of the decrees brought by his legates from the council. In fact, this moment of "confirmation" took place in all other cases, when the deputy at the council of some inconspicuous provincial metropolitan brought to the latter for reading the acts of the council, or rather, the most important of them. But the Roman archbishops and later Latin canonists extracted from this essentially accidental fact the normative principle of church law, supposedly traditional, the right of the pope to assert by his consent and signature the very authority of the ecumenical councils, i.e., to be super-arbiters over the ecumenical councils. Meanwhile, this "statement" primarily meant only confirmation of the correctness of the actions of the papal legates. The Pope retroactively duplicated their act of agreement with the decision of the Council and their signatures under it. The same act of "confirmation" and signature post factura was given by all other bishops, no matter how small and provincial their sees were, if their deputies, presbyters and archimandrites, were actually present and voted at the council. It did not occur to the bishop of Amastrida, Iconium, Apamea, etc., at the moment of his affirmative signature to the report of his deputies, that by this he exalted himself to the height of a super-arbiter above the ecumenical councils. But the Roman sense of self was completely different. And practice seemed to fully justify him. It has been the custom since the First Council of Nicaea that the popes freed themselves from boiling in the cauldron of conciliar passions by sending their deputies. The heretical fervor of the East was sincerely alien to them, and they looked down on the councils. The East, as always, did not understand the West, was not interested in it, and did not suspect that another ecclesiological mysticism was growing and developing there: from a simple technical fact, the Roman spirit already concluded that the popes had a special superior position in relation to the ecumenical councils. and the East, not suspecting any of this, continued unconsciously to subscribe to all the honorable formulas that Rome offered it. When, in the ninth century, the East had to pay these bills of exchange, and it began to refuse, it turned out to be a dishonest apostate in the eyes of the West. And this profound misunderstanding by the West of the behavior of the East tragically continues to this day.