Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:13:02.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Shifting Tones of Pope Leo the Great's Christological Vocabulary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Philip L. Barclift
Philip L. Barclift
Affiliation:
visiting professor of theology at Seattle University, Seattle, Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the past several decades Leonine studies have focused attention on Pope Leo the Great's Christology, noting the influence his Tomus ad Flavianum had at the Council of Chalcedon. In fact, because of this strong influence twentieth-century scholars have studied the Tome nearly exclusively in order to identify the heart of Leo's Christology. There can be no question, of course, that the Tome should be consulted in order to understand Leo's Christology, but it marks only one phase in the ongoing development of the ways he chose to express his christological insights. In part the Tome itself precipitated this development insofar as it opened up his Christology to scrutiny in the East. The tone of Leo's insights and the language he used to express them shifted and acquired greater precision over time in his letters and sermons in direct response to the dynamics of the christological controversy in the East, of which Leo's Tome made him a part. This development is most evident in three areas: his avoidance of the “Mother of God” title for the Virgin Mary after initially using it early in his pontificate; his use of the terms homo and humanus, which Leo learned to distinguish later in his pontificate; and his adoption of the Antiochene homo assumptus formula late in his pontificate to emphasize the fullness of Christ's human nature. These phenomena reflect the pope's careful attempt to distance himself from the rising tide of the Monophysite movement in the East, as he began to channel his traditional, Western Christology more through formulae used by Antiochene theologians. These phenomena can only be observed through careful, chronological analysis of the broader corpus of Pope Leo's works.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 221 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. All citations from Pope Leo's Tome are based on the critical edition of Silva-Tarouca, C., ed., Magni, S. Leonis: Tomus ad Flavianum Episc. Constantinopolitanum in Textus et Documenta (TD), Series Theologica, tome 9 (Rome, 1932). See esp. Silva-Tarouca's notes on pp. 24–32 for a careful analysis of the contents of the Tome.Google Scholar

2. Gaidioz, J., “Saint Prosper d'Aquitaine et le Tome a Flavien,” Revue de sciences religieuses 23 (1949): 270–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarFor additional commentary on the relationship between Pope Leo and Prosper of Aquitaine, see James, N. W., “Leo the Great and Prosper of Aquitaine: A Fifth Century Pope and His Adviser,” Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993): 554–584;CrossRefGoogle ScholarArens, Herbert, Die christologische Sprache Leos des Groβen: Analyse des Tomus an den Bishopen Flavian (Freiburg, Germany, 1982), p. 110;Google Scholarand Ertl, N., “Diktatoren frühmittelaltlicher Papstbriefe,” Archiv für Urkundenforschung 15 (1938): 56–61.Google Scholar

3. Davis, Leo Donald, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787): The History and Theology (Wilmington, Del., 1987), p. 176.Google Scholar

4. Frend, W. H. C., Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 2d ed. (New York, 1979), p. 131.Google Scholar

5. See Leo's sermon 28.5 for his description of both extremes. All citations of Pope Leo's sermons are from the critical edition Sancti Leonis Magni. Romani Pontificis Tractatus Septum et Nonaginta, Corpus Christianorum series Latina 138, ed. Chavasse, Antonius (Turnhout, Belgium, 1973). Because of the relative brevity of each sermon, I cite them only by sermon and chapter number.Google Scholar

6. Frend, W. H. C., The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia, Pa., 1985), p. 768.Google Scholar

7. “Praefatio,” De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium in J. P.Migne, Patrologia Latina (hereafter PL) (Paris, 1844-), 50.11.Google Scholar

8. Ibid., 2.3 (PL 50.39). Cassian mistakenly interpreted Nestorius's statement as a denial that Christ was a divine-human unity, that he was merely human, as the Arians had claimed (2.2; PL 50.31–32). Cassian also charged that Nestorius's doctrines smack of Pelagianism insofar as they seem to suggest that Christ as a mere human lived a perfect life, of which other humans are capable (1.3; PL 50.20). Indeed, these links to Arianism and Pelagianism form the chief basis of Cassian's entire attack against Nestorius and his Christotokos formula.

9. Cassian cites Augustine's lectures on John, In Joannis Evangelium 2.15, in his florilegium; see De incarnatione Domini 77.27 (PL 50.260–262). For additional examples of Augustine's doctrine that God was born of a woman, see De trinilate 8.5.7 (PL 42.952); and De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus 1.4 (PL 34.221). Based on these texts, there can be little doubt that Augustine would have welcomed the Dei genetrix title as a theological postulate of his own Christology.

10. Valeriani, Andrea, II Mistero del Nalale (Madrid, 1984), p. 31: “in Cristo operano l'umanita e la divinita ciascuna con operazione bensi distinta, ma con communione dall' altra ‘cum alterius comunione’. A motiva dell' unita di persona le azioni dell' una vengono attribuite anche all' altra natura.”Google Scholar

11. Serm. 23.2 (delivered in 442): “quam idem Filius Dei ut ostendat in se non discretae neque alterius esse personae, sic cum eadem dicit: ‘Pater maior me est’ [John 14:28], quemadmodum cum eadem dicit: ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus’ [John 10:30].”

12. Serm. 71.2: “ut non solum substantiam, sed etiam conditionem naturae peccatricis adsumeret, et ea sibi pateretur inferri diuina inpassibilitas, quae miserrime experitur humana mortalitas.”

13. See, for example, De incarnatione Domini 3.3 (PL 50.19).

14. Serm. 72.5: “inuisibilis uisibilem, intemporalis temporalem, inpassibilis passibilem substantiam suam fecit, non ut uirtus deficeret in infirmitate sed ut infirmitas in incorruptibilem posset transire uirtutem!”

15. Martorell, Jose, Mysterium Christi (Leon Magno), (Valencia, Spain, 1983), p.39.Google Scholar

16. See Epist. 165.2 (PL, 54.1157).

17. See for example, serm. 28.2.

18. See note 2.

19. Epist. 28.5. (TD 9.28.126–131): “Propter hanc ergo unitatem personae in utraque natura intellegendam, et filius hominis legitur descendisse de caelo cum filius Dei carnem de ea uirgine de qua est natus adsumpserit. Et rursum filius Dei crucifixus dicitur ac sepultus, cum haec non in diuinitate ipsa qua unigenitus consempiternus et consubstantialis est Patri, sed in naturae humanae sit infirmitate perpessus. Unde unigenitus filium Dei crucifixum et sepultum omnes etiam in symbolo confitemur.”

20. Epist. 124.1 (PL 54.1062): “Sollicitudini meae, quam universali Ecclesiae omnibusque ejus filiis debeo, multorum relatione patefactum est dilectionis vestrae animis quiddam offensionis illatum, dum aut imperiti, ut apparet, interpretes, aut maligni, quaedam vos aliter intelligere, quam a me sunt praedicata, fecerunt, non valentes in Graecum eloquium apte et proprie Latina transferre, cum in rebus subtilibus et difficilibus explicandis, vix sibi etiam in sua lingua disputator quisque sufficiat.”

21. For an analysis of Pope Leo's use of substantia rather than the term natura in this letter, which the Palestinian monks found particularly objectionable since it gives the impression that Christ was composed of “two persons,” see Sellers, R. V., The Council of Chalcedon (London, 1953), pp. 110–111.Google Scholar

22. Serm. 28.2: “ut in uno Dei atque hominis filio, et sine matre deitas, et sine patre esset humanitas. Simul enim per Spiritum fecundate uirginitas sine corruptions uestigio edidit et sui generis sobolem et suae stirpis auctorem.”

23. Serm. 54.1: “Tota est in maiestate humilitas, tota in humilitate maiestas … nee infert unitas confusionem, dirimit proprietas unitatem… Aliud est passibile, aliud inuiolabile, et eiusdem est contumelia, cuius et gloria. Ipse est in infirmitate qui et in uirtute, idem mortis capax, et idem uictor est mortis. Suscepit ergo totum hominem Deus, et ita se illi, atque ilium sibi misericordiae et potestatis ratione conseruit, ut utraque alteri natura inesset, et neutra in alteram a sua proprietate transiret.”

24. Serm. 28.5: “Nam ille beatam Mariam uirginem hominis tantummodo ausus est praedicare genetricem, ut in conceptu eius et partu nulla Verbi et carnis facta unitio crederetur, quia Dei Filius non ipse factus sit hominis filius, sed creato homini sola se dignatione sociauerit. Quod catholicae aures nequaquam tolerare potuerunt, quae sic euangelio ueritatis inbutae sunt, ut firmissime nouerint nullam esse humano generi spem salutis, nisi ipse esset filius Virginis, qui Creator est matris.”

25. Serm. 28.2: “ut in uno Dei atque hominis filio, et sine matre deitas.”

26. See Eutyches' declaration in Ada Conciliorum Oecumenicorum: Concilium Universale Chakedonense (hereafter ACO), vol. 2, part 4, ed. Schwartz, Edward (Berlin, 1932), 1.2.143: “homologo ek duo phuseon gegenesthai ton kurion hemon pro pes enoseos, meta de ten mian enosin phusin homologo” (emphasis mine). For additional comments on Eutyches's declaration, see Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, p. 524;Google Scholarand Bartnik, Czeslaw, “Wcielenie Jako Podstawa Teologii Historii u Leona Wielkiego,” Roczniki Teoligiczno-Kanoniczne (Lublin, Poland, 1960), pp. 33–34.Google Scholar

27. Serm. 28.5: “Si enim Verbi incarnatio unitio est diuinae humanaeque naturae, sed hie ipso concursu quod erat geminum factum est singulare, sola diuinitas utero Virginis nata est, et per ludificatoriam speciem sola subiit nutrimenta et incrementa corporea, utque omnes mutabilitates humanae conditionis omittam, sola diuinitas crucifixa, sola diuinitas mortua, sola diuinitas est sepulta, ut iam secundum talia sentientes sperandae resurrectionis nulla sit ratio, nee sit primogenitus ex morluis Christus, quia non fuit qui deberet reuscitari, si non fuit qui posset occidi.”

28. Serm. 28.6: “Adsumptus igitur homo in Filium Dei, sic in unitatem personae Christi ab ipsis corporalibus est receptus exordiis, ut nee sine deitate conceptus sit, nee sine deitate editus, nee sine deitate nutritus. Idem erat in miraculis, idem ub contumeliis; per humanam infirmitatem crucifixus, mortuus et sepultus, per diuinam uirtutem die tertia resuscitatus, ascendit ad caelos, consedit ad dexteram Patris, et in natura hominis a Patre accepit quod in natura Deitatis etiam ipse donauit” (emphasis mine).

29. Arens, , Christologische Sprache Leos, pp. 453–475;Google Scholarand Nicolas, , “La doctrine christologique,” pp. 640–641.Google Scholar

30. Bartnik, “Wcielenie Jako Podstawa Teologii Historii u Leona Wielkiego,” pp. 32, 37–38.I wish to express my gratitude to James Wojtkowski for his invaluable assistance in the translation of this important article.

31. Augustine, , Confessions 7.19 (PL 32.745): “His flesh did not join to your Word without a human soul and mind (anima et mente humana). All who know the immutability of your Word know this fact, which I myself have come to know, as best I could, but without the slightest doubt about it. Indeed, in order for him to move parts of his body by his will or at other times to refrain from moving them, to be aroused with affection at certain times or not to be aroused at others, to proclaim wise judgments sometimes or to remain silent at others, these are all manifestations of a mutable soul and mind… Consequendy, I acknowledged in Christ a complete man (totum hominem), not merely the body of a man (hominis), or even one with a sensitive soul which is not also rational, but a real man (ipsum hominem), whom I have deemed worthy to be esteemed above all others, not because he is a person of truth, but because of the great and excellent human nature (naturae humanae) that was perfected in him” (my translation).Google Scholar

32. Serm. 22.2: “inpassibilis Deus non dedignatus est homo esse passibilis.”

33. Serm. 27.1: “in homine hominem renouans, in se incommutabilis perseuerans… ut Dei ad humana descensio fieret hominis ad diuina prouectio.”

34. Epist. 124.4 (PL 54.1064): “Quam itaque sibi in hujus sacramenti praesidio spem relinquunt qui in Salvatoris nostri corpore negant humanae substantiae veritatem?” Compare sermon 64, which is a particularly significant source for this chapter of Leo's letter: “neque ullum nostrae religionis officium est quo non tarn mundi reconciliatio quam humanae in Christo naturae adsumptio celebretur” (64.1); “Solus enim beatae Virginis natus est filius absque delicto, non extraneus ab hominum genere, sed alienus crimine” (64.2); and “Cum ergo in uno Domino lesu Christo uero Dei atque hominis Filio, diuinam confitemur de Patre naturam, humanam de matre substantiam” (64.3).

35. Epist. 124.6 (PL 54.1065): “Quamvis ergo ab illo initio, quo in utero virginis ‘Verbum caro factum est’ [John 1:14], nihil umquam inter divinam humanamque substantiam divisionis exstiterit, et per omnia incrementa corporea, unis personae fuerint totius temporis actiones; ea ipsa tamen, quae inseparabiliter facta sunt, nulla permixtione confundimus; sed quid cujus formae sit, ex operum qualitate sentimus. Nee divina enim humanis praejudicant, nee humana divinis, cum ita in idipsum utraque concurrent, ut in eis nee proprietas absumatur, nee persona geminetur.”

36. Epist. 124.7 (PL 54.1066): “Quamvis ergo unus sit Dominus Jesus Christus, et verae Deitatis veraeque humanitatis in ipso una prorsus eademque persona, neque hujus unitioni soliditas ulla possit divisione sejungi.”

37. Epist. 124.7 (PL 54.1066): “Forma autem servi, per quam impassibilis Deitas sacramentum magnae pietatis implevit, humana humilitas est, quae in gloriam divinae potestatis evecta est, in tantam unitatem ab ipso conceptu Virginis Deitate et humanitate connexu, ut nee sine homine divina, nee sine Deo agerentur humanua.”

38. Serm. 21.1: “auctori suo naturam generis adsumpsit humani”; 21.2: “ut manens quod erat adsumensque quod non erat, ueram serui formam”; 23.3: “Adsumpta est de matre Domini natura, non culpa”; 24.1: “ut Verbum illud coaeternum et aequale genitori in unitatem deitatis suae naturam nostrae humilitatis adsumeret”; and 25.3: “In adsumtione enim naturae nostrae nobis factus est gradus quo ad ipsum per ipsum possimus ascendere.”

39. Serm. 72:6–7: “Sed quia Verbum et caro una persona est, non diuiditur a susceptus, et honor prouehendi prouehentis nominatur augmentum, dicente Apostolo quod iam commemorauimus: Propter quod et Deus ilium exaltauit et donauit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen. In quo utique adsumpti hominis exaltatio commendatur, ut in cuius passionibus indiuisibilis manet Deitas, idem coaeternus sit in gloria Deitatis… Cuius unitatis nullum poterunt habere consortium, qui in Dei Filio Deo uero humanam negant manere naturam.”

40. See Pope Leo's Epist. 59.5 (PL 54.872); and Cassian's De incarnatione Domini 6.15.

41. See Prestige, G. L., “The Greek Translation of the Tome of St. Leo,” Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1930): 183–184.Google Scholar

42. It should be noted that the Egyptians did not identify themselves with Eutyches but with Cyril of Alexandria. The title “Eutychians” is Leo's own caricature of them.

43. Serm. 96.1: “asserentes solam deitatis in Christo fuisse naturam, nee carnis humanae, quam sumpsit ex beata Maria uirgine, habuisse penitus ueritatem, quae impietas at falsum hominem et Deut dicit esse passibilem.”

44. Serm. 96.2: “qui incarnationis dominicae denegant sacramentum: quod unigenitus Dei Filius, aequalis per omnia Patri, nostrae adsumptione substantiae, manens quod erat, dignatus esse quod non erat, uerus scilicet homo, uerus Deus, qui absque cuiusquam sorde peccati, integram sibi nostram perfectamque naturam ueritate et animae at carnis uniuit, et intra uterum beatae uirginis matris Spiritus sancti uirtute conceptus, nee editionem partus, nee primordia fastidiuit infantiae.”

45. Ibid.

46. Bartnik, “Teologii Historii u Leona Wielkiego,” pp. 37–38.

47. Ibid.: “ut qui haec credunt, dubitare non possint quid humanitati adscribere, quid debeant adsignare deitati, quia in utroque unus est Christ, qui et Deitatis suae potentiam non amisit, et ueritatem perfecti hominis nascendo suscepit.”

48. Tertullian, , Adversus Praxeas 27.6 (Corpus Christianorum, series Latina [hereafter CCL] [Turnhout, Belgium, 1953-]2.1199–2000): “Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed coniunctum in una persona, Deum et hominem lesum… et adeo salua est utriusque proprietas substantiae, ut et Spiritus res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et carro passiones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo, siuens sub Samaritide, flens Lazarum, anixa ad mortem, denique et mortua est.”Google Scholar

49. Tertullian, , De carne Christi 24.1–4 (CCL 2.915–916).Google Scholar

50. Ibid., 5.1–4 (CCL 2.880–881).

51. Augustine, Tractatus 78: Comm. in Joann. 14.27.28: “Agnoscamus geminam substantium Christi, divinam scilicet qua aequalis est Patri; humanam, qua maior est Pater. Utrumque autem simul non duo, sed unus est Christus: ne sit quaternitas non Trinitas Deus. Sicut enim unus est homo anima rationalis et caro, sic unus est Christo, Deus et homo: ac per hoc Christus est, Deus, anima rationalis et caro. Christum in his omnibus, Christum in singulis confitemur. Quis est ergo per quern factus est mundus? Christus Jesus, sed in forma Dei. Quis est sub Pontius Pilato crucifixus? Christus Jesus, sed in forma servi. Item de singulis quibus homo constat. Quis non est derelictus in inferno? Christus Jesus, sed in anima sola. Quis resurrecturus triduo iacuit in sepulchro? Christus Jesus, sed in carne sola. Dicitur ergo in his singulis Christus. Verum haec omnia non duo vel tres sed unus est Christus.” Compare Pope Leo's citation of this passage in Epist. 165 (PL 54.1181).

52. Augustine, Enchiridion 10.35 (PL 40.250): “idemque ipse utrumque ex utroque unus Christus.”

53. Augustine, Contra sermonem quemdam Arianorum 8.6 (PL 42.688).

54. Augustine, De praedestinalione sanctorum (PL 44.959–992); De dono perseverantiae (PL 45.993–1034). Prosper's request to Augustine is in Prosper of Aquitaine, Ep. ad Augustinum de reliquiis Pelagianae (PL 44.947–954).

55. Augustine, De praedestinatione sanctorum 30.15 (PL 44.981–982).