Fr. Anthony AKINWALE OP

 

On May 8, 2025, when Robert Cardinal Prevost was elected to the Petrine Office by the College of Cardinals, he chose to be called Leo XIV.  In the annals of the Papacy, that name rings a bell.  It evokes memories of the first Leo and of the last Leo.

       The first Leo was Pope Leo the Great who became Pope on September 29, 440 and reigned till November 10, 461. The last Leo was Pope Leo XIII, Gioacchino Vincenzo Raffaele Luigi, who was born on March 2, 1810, elected Pope on February 20, 1878, and died on July 20, 1903. 

Although he was not physically present, Pope Leo the Great played a decisive role at the Council of Chalcedon which took place in 451.  Prior to that Council were the Council of Nicaea, which took place in 325; the Council of Constantinople, which took place in 381; and the Council of Ephesus which took place in 431.  To be noted is that the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea will take place in July this year.

The Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine in response to the teaching of Arius.  Arius taught that the Son of God was a creature.  He was not of the same nature as the Father, and therefore, not eternal.  Since he was not eternal, said Arius, there was a time he was not. 

The response of the Council of Nicaea is found in the words of the Creed we now recite or chant at Mass.  Refuting Arius’ teaching that the Son was a creature, the Council responded that the Son was “begotten not made”.  Refuting Arius’ teaching that the Son was not of the same nature with the Father, the Council of Nicaea affirmed in the Creed that he is “consubstantial” that is, of the same nature “with the Father”.  And, in response to the teaching of Arius that there was a time the Son was not, the Council of Nicaea affirmed that the Son was “eternally begotten of the Father”.  The summary of Arius’ teaching was denial of the divinity of the Son.  To this, the Council of Nicaea responded that the Son is “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God”.

It is said that every Church Council is followed by a period of confusion lasting at least 50 years. Indeed, a period of confusion, longer than 50 years, followed the Council of Nicaea.  There was confusion over how to interpret the teaching of the Council. 

When the Council of Nicaea affirmed the divinity of the Son, there were those who thought the Council denied his humanity.  One of them was Appolinarius of Laodicea who taught that the Son had no human soul.  In other words, while Arius denied the divinity of the Son, Appolinarius denied his humanity.  The Council of Constantinople, which took place in 381, refuted the teaching of Appolinarius by affirming the human nature of the Son.  But confusion continued.

If there are two natures, and if each nature adheres to a person, are there then two persons in Christ?  Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople responded in the affirmative.  Archbishop Nestorius held the doctrine that since there are two natures in Christ, human and divine, and since every nature adheres to a person, there are two persons.  There is the person of the divine Son of God who was born of the Father before time began, as the Creed of Nicaea teaches, and there is the person of the human son born of Mary in time. In other words, Nestorius was teaching that Jesus and Christ are two different persons.  On the grounds of this argument, Nestorius drew the conclusion that Mary is not mother of God.  Since no human being can give birth to God, he reasoned, Mary is mother of the human person, not mother of the divine person.

The Council of Ephesus, which took place in 431, fifty years after the Council of Constantinople, affirmed that the Son of God is one divine person, not two; that Mary gave birth to a divine person, and, for this reason, Mary is Mother of God.  But confusion continued.  If the Son of God is one person, one divine person, are there still two natures in him? 

Eutyches and his supporters responded in the negative.  They are called Monophysites.  The name comes from two Greek words— “mono”, which means “one”; and “phusis”, which means “nature”.  Thus, Monophysites affirmed that since the Son of God is one person, one divine person, there is only one nature in him, and that is, the divine nature.  In other words, one nature was left after the incarnation, and that is, the divine nature of the divine person.

The monophysite teaching reechoes today in populist preaching in Nigeria.  The human nature of Jesus Christ is denied, or at least not affirmed, when the emphasis is on miracles and wonders.  The Christological controversy continues in our time and clime.

The Council of Chalcedon was convoked in 451 to clarify and reaffirm the teaching of the Council of Ephesus.  Against the teaching of Nestorius, the Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the teaching of the Council of Ephesus that the Son is one person, not two; and, against the teaching of Eutyches and the Monophysites, the Council of Ephesus clarified that in this one divine person that the Son is, there are two natures—one human and the other divine.  To use the words of the Council of Chalcedon, “we confess one and the same Son, who is our Lord Jesus Christ, and we all agree in teaching that this very same Son is complete in his divine nature and complete—the very same—in his humanity….the character of each nature is preserved and comes together in one person…not divided nor torn into two persons but one and the same Son and only-begotten God.”

The First Leo, Pope Leo the Great, was not present at the Council of Chalcedon.  Yet, his presence was felt in his Letter to Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, read at the Council.  In response to his clear teaching on the person of Christ, the fathers present at the Council proclaimed: “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.”  

Pope Leo the Great’s homilies on the Nativity of our Lord provide me with refreshment every Christmas.  In his Sermon XXIII on the Nativity, he wrote about the two natures of Christ at the incarnation in these words: “both natures [human and divine] retain their own proper character without loss: and as the form of God did not do away with the form of a slave, so the form of a slave did not impair the form of God.  And so the mystery of [divine] power united to [human] weakness, in respect of the same human nature, allows the Son to be called inferior to the Father: but the Godhead, which is One in the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, excludes all notion of inequality.”

Thus, the First Leo was noted for clarity and depth in his teaching on the person of Christ who is true God and true man in one person, the Son of God, in whom “the Invisible made himself Visible”.  But we must also speak of the Last Leo—Pope Leo XIII.

The Pontificate of the last Leo, Pope Leo XIII, was quite eventful. He was the Pope who elevated John Henry Newman to the cardinalate in 1879.  He gave robust support to the study of ecclesiastical sciences.  His publication of the encyclical Providentissimus Deus in 1893 and the establishment of the Biblical Commission boosted the study of Sacred Scriptures within Catholicism.  

Two of his most famous acts would turn out to be the publication of the encyclical Aeterni Patris in 1880, and the encyclical Rerum Novarum on May 18, 1891. 

Seeing the danger that modern philosophies posed to the faith, Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Aeterni Patris in 1880.  In that encyclical he identified and recommended study of the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas as a way of responding to challenges posed to the faith by atheistic philosophies of the time To be continued.