The Petrine ministry at
the time of the first four ecumenical councils:
relations between the
Bishop of Rome and the Eastern Bishops as revealed in the canons, process, and
reception of the councils
Author: Pierluigi De
Lucia S.J.
Abstract
The Petrine ministry
of the bishops of Rome and relations with the eastern bishops at the time of
the first four ecumenical councils are the focus of this thesis. It places the
Church in the complex historical context marked by the public recognition of
Christianity under Constantine (312) and the great novelty of the close
interactions of the emperors with the bishops of the major sees in the period,
Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople. The study examines the structures
of the church (local and regional synods and ecumenical councils) and the roles
of bishops and emperors in the ecumenical councils of Nicaea (325),
Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451), including the
“robber” council of 449. Attention is given to the most important and sometimes
contested canons of those councils regarding the relationship of the eastern
bishops and their sees to the bishop of Rome and his claims to exercise a
Petrine ministry and authority for the whole Church: canon 6 (Nicaea), canon 3
(Constantinople), canon 7 (Ephesus) and canon 28 (Chalcedon). The method of the
study is historical and draws on the contributions of major Orthodox, Anglican,
Lutheran and Catholic scholars. The concluding synthesis and ecclesiological
reflection finds that no Roman bishop was present at these councils, but at all
but Constantinople, where there was a western observer, he sent legates.
Sometimes the bishop of Rome played an important role in the ecumenical
councils, i.e., Leo in relation to Ephesus 449 and Chalcedon; Celestine and
recognition of Ephesus 431, and in both cases, the emperor also supported the
final decisions. Moreover, the bishops of Rome played a minor role in relation
to Nicaea and Constantinople. Finally, in regard to canon 3 of Constantinople
and 28 of Chalcedon they consistently asserted that their apostolicity and
foundation on Peter was the source of the Roman bishop’s authority and
precedence.
Table of
Contents
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1:
THE PETRINE MINISTRY AND THE STRUCTURES OF THE CHURCH AT THE TIME OF NICAEA
1.
INTRODUCTION
2. SYNODS,
COUNCILS AND MAIN CHARACTERS BEFORE NICAEA
2.1 Context
2.2 Victor I
of Rome and the date of Easter
2.3 Cyprian
of Carthage and Stephen of Rome
2.4 Dionysius
of Alexandria, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata: homoousios and the
Logos theology
3. MILTIADES,
SYLVESTER AND COUNCIL OF ARLES
3.1 Pope
Miltiades
3.2 Pope
Sylvester I and the council of Arles
4. THE
COUNCIL OF NICAEA
4.1 The Arian
Controversy
4.2
Constantine and the Church
4.3
Convocation, composition, process
4.4 Doctrinal
decisions and the Creed
5. CANONS OF
NICAEA ON EPISCOPAL ORDER AND METROPOLITAN BISHOPS
5.1 Canons 4,
5, 7.
5.2 Canon 6
6. NICAEA AS
A NEW KIND OF COUNCIL
6.1 The
authority of Nicaea
6.2 Holy Spirit
and holy council
6.3 Nicaea as
an ecumenical council
CHAPTER 2:
THE PETRINE MINISTRY AND THE STRUCTURES OF THE CHURCH AT THE TIME OF
CONSTANTINOPLE
I
1. CONTEXT:
DEVELOPMENTS BETWEEN NICAEA AND CONSTANTINOPLE I
1.1 A
Half-Century of Conflict after the Council of Nicaea
1.2 Pope
Julius and Athanasius
1.3 The
consequences of the Synod of Tyre
1.4 The
canons of Serdica
1.5 Pope
Liberius
1.6 The
Heresies of Macedonius and Apollinaris
1.7 Damasus
1.8
Theodosius
2. THE
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE I
2.1
Convocation of a General Council for the East
2.2 The
Bishop of Constantinople and the Presidency of the Council
2.3 Ascolius
and Damasus
2.4
Constantinople I: an eastern council
2.5 Doctrinal
Decisions of the Council
3. THE CANONS
OF THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
3.1 The Three
Disciplinary Canons
3.2 Roman
Response to Canon 3
3.5 Reception
of Constantinople I as an ecumenical council
CHAPTER 3:
THE PETRINE MINISTRY AND THE STRUCTURES OF THE CHURCH AT THE TIME OF EPHESUS
AND
CHALCEDON
1. CONTEXT:
DEVELOPMENTS FROM CONSTANTINOPLE I TO EPHESUS
1.1
Chrysostom in Constantinople, conflict between bishop and empress
1.2 Rome, the
Pelagian Controversy, and the Petrine ministry
1.3 Celestine
2. THE
THEOLOGICAL ISSUES LEADING TO EPHESUS
2.1
Theological issues leading up to Ephesus
3. THE
COUNCIL OF EPHESUS
3.1 Context
and decisions
3.2 Canon 7
of Ephesus
4. FROM
EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON
4.1 Context
4.2 Leo the
Great: the Petrine ministry and relations with other bishops
4.3
Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Leo’s Tome
4.4 “The
robber council
5. THE COUNCIL
OF CHALCEDON
5.1 The
preparation
5.3 Creeds
5.2
Definition of Chalcedon
5.4 Leo’s
Tome
5.5 Canons of
Chalcedon
5.6 Canon 28
of Chalcedon
5.7
Interpretation of Canon 28
5.8 Roman
response to Canon 28 and the Council
CHAPTER 4:
SYNTHESIS AND ECCLESIOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE PETRINE MINISTRY IN THE
COMMUNION OF
THE FIRST FIVE CENTURIES
1.
INTRODUCTION
2. THE BISHOP
OF ROME AND THE OTHER BISHOPS AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST FOUR ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
2.1 From the
end of the third century until the council of Nicaea
2.2 From
Nicaea until Constantinople I
2.3 From the
end of the fourth century until the council of Chalcedon
3. ECCLESIOLOGICAL
REFLECTION: THE PETRINE MINISTRY IN THE COMMUNION OF CHURCHES AT THE TIME OF
THE FIRST FOUR
ECUMENICAL
COUNCILS:
3.1
Conciliarity and synodality
3.2
Super-metropolitans and metropolitans
3.3 Relations
between the bishop of Rome and the eastern bishops and vice versa
3.4
Conclusion: Ratzinger Formula and recent ecumenical agreements
Introduction
The Petrine
ministry in the first two millenniums is the main obstacle to the unity of the
one Church of Christ. Many attempts were made by Catholics and other Christians
of the mainline traditions (Lutherans, Anglican communion, Methodists,
Orthodox, etc.) to clarify this question. Pope John Paul II with his Encyclical
Ut Unum Sint” (see n°95) asked all Christians to figure out new ways to
practice the Petrine ministry today. With the theological reflections of other
Christian traditions on that topic, and also with our engagement it is possible
to continue on the right path that leads to the unity that God is willing.
In this
research it is my intention to examine canons, process, and reception of the first
four ecumenical councils that pertain to structures of episcopal authority and
jurisdiction in order to understand the way in which the Petrine ministry was
understood and practiced among the early churches. On the one hand, this work
will lead me to study relevant and particular canons. It will also study how
the bishop of Rome understood his pastoral service for the Church. On the other
hand, it will be important to look at which kind of authority the eastern
bishops recognized in the bishop of Rome. That itinerary will allow me to see the
trajectory of the Petrine ministry as it develops through most of five
centuries.
In this work
it will be necessary to look at the relations between the bishop of Rome and
the eastern Bishops at the time of the undivided Church. For that reason the method
that I am going to use will help me to focus on the structure, and canons of
the first four councils on which there is “a common understanding” between East
and West, studying some important aspects of each council and the reception of
the canons and decrees of the councils.
From the
canons we can learn something about the actual practice of relationships among bishops,
the way structures of the church reflect those relationships and also shape
them, the way levels of jurisdiction and authority and mechanisms of governance
emerge over the course of conciliar history - provincial synods, metropolitan
bishops, the emerging patriarchates. From the process of each council we can
learn how the bishops related to each other and sometimes we can learn something
about the role of the bishop of Rome and how he was regarded; other times we
cannot. This includes contributions such as Leo's Tome at Chalcedon, as
well as appeals for assistance. From the reception of the canons and the councils,
we can learn more about the actual relationships between the eastern bishops
and the bishop of Rome. Especially I want to understand how the bishop of Rome
saw his service and his authority among the other bishops in the context of the
church of their time. It will also be important to look at the eastern bishops,
and discover which authority they recognized in the bishop of Rome.
The method
that I am going to use will be strictly historical for the approach to sources and
scholarship, choosing outstanding authors from the different Christian
traditions. I discovered that it is possible to grow in communion and unity by
searching for a common understanding of Church history. Scholars such as Henry
Chadwick, Peter L’Huillier, Wilhelm De Vries, and many others will help me to
have a serious account of the main events of the period of the Church that I am
going to study here.
In the first
chapter I will provide a focus on the events that prepared the council of Nicea
(325). With the first council, the Church started to develop its faith, to
answer seriously the heresies, to issue disciplinary decrees, and to be a sign
of contradiction in the world. In the second chapter, with the council of
Constantinople (381) the Symbol of faith of Nicaea will be integrated with a
more complete faith understanding of the Fathers gathered in Constantinople.
Especially it will be necessary to keep the focus on the canons, the process, and
the reception of the councils, not their doctrinal content as such. I will
especially study canon 3 of Constantinople, the “new Rome,” and the Roman
reaction to that assertion. In the Synod of Rome (382) the formulation of the
“Petrine principle” was completed (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch). I will also look
at other canons from the councils about episcopal structure. In the third
chapter I will provide a study of the council of Ephesus of 431, the “robber”
council of 449 and Chalcedon (451). I will look at the significant doctrinal
issues, and at the same time I will focus on some canons of the councils, in
particular I will study canon 28 of Chalcedon and the Roman response. In the
last chapter I will provide a synthesis of the Petrine ministry, and of the
other significant issues studied in almost the first half of the first
millennium. I apologize now that I will not be able in this work to consider
the most relevant points of the ecumenical dialogue in light of the results of
this research. It was my intention to do that, as it also was my will to study
all the first seven ecumenical councils. In agreement with my mentors I decided
to follow the Ignatian motto: “Non multa sed multum.”2 Following that
criterion I discovered a great treasure in studying the first four ecumenical
councils. However, from those considerations I will attempt to do some ecclesiological
reflections at the end, focusing on the main points and significant questions that
emerge from this historical study.
2 Quintilian, Instit.,
X, I, 59.
Chapter 1:
The Petrine ministry and the structures of the Church at the time of Nicaea
1.
Introduction
In this
chapter I will focus on the Petrine ministry and the structures of episcopal collegiality
at the time of the council of Nicaea (325). With the first “ecumenical”
council, the Church started to make formal doctrinal decisions and issue
disciplinary decrees intended for all the churches. Although Nicaea represents
a new moment for early Christianity, it is necessary to see it in the context
of a developing practice and understanding of episcopal collegiality and
synodal decision-making that preceded it.1
I begin by looking at several important events and characters of the third
century in regard to these developments. Then I discuss the context and
characteristics of the council of Nicaea, and the role of the Roman bishops by
an examination of the canons relating to structures of episcopal ministry and relationship.
I will also discuss the questions of its authority, divine inspiration, and
reception as an ecumenical council in the fourth century.2
1 See Wilhem De
Vries, Orient et Occident: Les Structures Ecclésiales Vues Dans
L’Historie des Sept Premiers Conciles Oecumeniques (Paris: Les
Édition Du Cerf, 1974), 13. Wilhem De Vries asserts that consciousness
of the episcopacy existed already, but the historical circumstances made it
impossible for the totality of the episcopacy of the universal Church to
meet together in a specific place. For a clear idea of how many councils
and synods the Church had from the first part of the third century until the
ecumenical council of Constantinople II of 553, see Ramsay MacMullen, Voting
About God in Early Church Councils (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2006), 2-4.
2 For the
history of the context and content of the Petrine ministry in the Church of the
first three centuries see: Henry Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society:
From Galilee to Gregory the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003),
1-200; Bernd Moeller (a cura di), Storia Ecumenica della Chiesa: Nuova edizione:
1. Dagli inizi al Medioevo (Brescia: Queriniana, 2009), 5-112; Oscar
Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A historical and
Theological Essay (New York: Meridian Books, 1958), 17-238; Raymond E. Brown,
Karl P. Donfried, John Reumann, (Edd.), Peter in the New Testament: A
Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1973), 1-168; Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., From
Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church (New
York: The Newman Press, 2001), 1-236; Klaus Schatz, S.J, Papal Primacy: From
Its Origins to the Present (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996),
1-21; Giovanni Falbo, Il Primato della Chiesa di Roma alla luce dei Primi
Quattro Secoli (Roma: Coletti, 1989), 5-325; Veselin Kesich, The Church
in History: Formation and Struggles: The Church AD 33-450, Part I. The
Birth of the Church Ad 33-200, vol. 1 (Cretwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 2007), 1-189.
2. Synods,
councils and main characters before Nicaea
2.1
Context
In the
pre-Constantinian period, and before Nicaea, early councils and synods dealt with
local or regional issues, and were a collegial exercise of episcopal
responsibility. Significant elements of those meetings were later incorporated
by the Fathers at Nicaea. The intention of the bishops was to make with
authority some delicate decisions. For example in the Synod of Carthage in 252,
the Fathers of the council understood that in discerning and making
deliberations it was important to recognize the role of the Holy Spirit. Here,
Cyprian prepared a written summary of the synod for bishop Cornelius of Rome.
He insisted that the decision was taken under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit to offer peace to the lapsi.3
Another
example of the authority of synods is the synod of Elvira in 306. Its canon 53 decreed
that any bishop who will not respect the determinations taken will be
responsible to the provincial synod.4 The resolutions of these councils usually were
communicated by the Fathers to churches of other regions, in order to confer a
more universal value on them, as happened at the synod of Antioch in 268 which
announced its decisions to the churches saying: “à tous les évêques, nos
collègues de l’univers entier, aux prêtres et aux diacres et à toute l’Eglise
catholique qui est sous le ciel.”5 Synodal deliberations were concerned with theological
issues and disciplinary measures taken in regard to clerics and the faithful.
In the third
century, regional synods took place in North Africa (Carthage), Egypt (Alexandria),
and Syria (Antioch). There were also local synods in the western churches as well,
but it does not seem that there were regional synods in the third-century west.
Because synods were particular to their region, neither the Roman bishop nor
other bishops participated in synods beyond their region. At these councils and
synods, the main discussions were about “disciplinary and liturgical regulation
of the communities of the province, the examination of the legality of
episcopal elections that had taken place, and the erections or division of
bishoprics.”6
According to Hubert Jedin, among the churches of East and West, the most
mature form of synodality belonged to the bishops of North Africa. They met in
the plenary council of that area, in which several provinces were represented,
under the presidency of the bishop of Carthage. In Alexandria, the synods which
the bishop of Alexandria convened were for the whole church of Egypt, Lybia and
Pentapolis. Antioch also knew of interprovincial synods. Among such councils
the synod of Rome had a unique place, meeting under the guidance of the bishop
of Rome, who was the single metropolitan of Italia suburbicaria (central
and southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia). That synod dealt not only with questions
of the bishops of this territory, but intentionally discussed and made
decisions that were regarded as binding for other churches outside its own
metropolitan sphere. Other important interprovincial councils were held under
the guidance of the metropolitans of Milan, Aquileia, and later Ravenna. There
was no similar ecclesiastical center in Gaul in this period for councils of
this sort.
A new form of
ecclesiastical gathering emerged with the synod of Arles in 314. For the first
time in history a Roman emperor convoked a church council. At the request of
Donatists who were appealing against judgments made against them by synods in
North Africa and Rome, Constantine directed the bishop of Rome to hear their
case (see below, section 3). He and later the other emperors understood that
they had the right to do so, and they expected obedience and gratitude for
their support of the churches. They created “the technical presuppositions” for
the councils, facilitating the logistics and offering to the bishops hospitality
and all the necessary means to achieve their plans. No ecclesiastical or civil
law defined the emperors’ right to enter in ecclesiastical questions, and the
convocation of councils, but no council or bishop of Rome denied that claim,
rather it was expressly confirmed.7
3 See Cyprian, Letter
57 to Cornelius of Rome: “And so, prompted by the Holy Spirit and
counselled by
the Lord
through many explicit visions, we came to the decision....” (5.2), The
Letters of St. Cyprian, trans. and
annotated,
G.W. Clarke, Ancient Christian Writers, no. 46 (New York, Newman Press, 1986),
59.
4 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 15-16.
5 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 13-14.
6 Karl Baus et
all, The Imperial Church From Constantine to the Early Middle Ages, vol.
2, History of the Church, ed. Hubert Jedin (New York: The Seabury Press,
1980), 241.
7 See Karl Baus
et all, The Imperial Church From Constantine to the Early Middle Ages, 244.
2.2
Victor I of Rome and the date of Easter
In the
pre-Nicene period, one of the most significant bishops was Victor I. He was
born in Africa and was bishop of Rome from 189 to 199. His episcopacy
accelerated the Latinization of the Church in the West, which was still using Greek
in its official texts. He was at the center of a controversy about the date of
Easter. Before the Council of Nicaea, there were two main Christian traditions
concerning the day on which Easter should be celebrated. Since the time of
bishop Soter (c. 160), when the regular celebration of Easter was introduced at
Rome, relations between Rome and some eastern communities were challenged by
that question.8 The churches of the Roman province of Asia (Ephesus,
Smyrna, etc.) celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day of the lunar month of
Nisan that corresponds at the Jewish day of Passover. Often, that day was not a
Sunday. The church of Rome celebrated Easter on the Sunday after Passover, as
did Alexandria and many other churches.
At Rome,
where communities of Christians from the province of Asia Minor were following
their own tradition, there was confusion about the Easter observance. During Victor’s
episcopacy a Roman synod attempted to impose uniformity of practice not only in
Rome but elsewhere. The synod recommended that the bishops of every region
gather in synods, discuss the question, and adhere to his proposal if they did
not already follow it. But, the bishops of Asia were determined to keep their
tradition of celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan. The bishop of
Ephesus, Polycrates, with the authority of those who claim - as Rome also did-
apostolic origins, sent a letter to Victor in which he explained the firm
position of the Asians bishops’ in keeping unchanged the date of Easter. Victor
received that explanatory letter with great disfavor, and his answer was
strong. He threatened to break communion with the churches of the province of
Asia. Irenaeus of Lyon, who was a native of that province, felt the necessity
of responding to Victor. He based his arguments on the fact that Victor’s predecessors
had maintained communion with those who kept the tradition of celebrating Easter
on the day of Passover, and he invited Victor to tolerate those traditions.9 Thus, in his letter
Irenaeus traced the history of the “presbyters” of Rome before Victor, and
showed that they tolerated differences in practice, as Polycarp of Smyrna’s
discussion with bishop Anicetus (154) had earlier demonstrated.
Another
question was solved by Irenaeus who had a high regard for the tradition of the Roman
church. In his work Against Heresies he had cited the succession of
bishops in Rome –“that greatest, and most ancient church known to all, founded
and established at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” – as
best and most easily illustrating the tradition of all the churches that prove
the teachings of Gnostic groups wrong. In that same passage, Irenaeus also
asserted that:
But since it
would be extremely long in a book such as this to give succession lists for all
the churches (we shall take just one), the greatest and most ancient church, known
to all, founded and established at Rome by the most glorious Apostles, Peter and
Paul. We shall show that the tradition which it has from the Apostles and the faith
which it has preached to men, comes down to us through the successions of bishops.
Thus we shall confound all who, in whatever way, either through self-satisfaction
or vainglory, blindness or doctrinal error, form communities they should not.
For every church, i.e. the faithful who are in all parts of the world, should
agree with this church because of its superior foundation. In this church the
tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are from all parts
of the world.10
Irenaeus
meant, according to Sullivan, that “as every church must be in agreement with
the teaching of Peter and Paul, so every church must agree in faith with the
church that has inherited the teaching of those greatest of Apostles and handed
it on in an unbroken succession of teachers.” Now, as Sullivan observes, Victor
apparently thought they must be in agreement with Rome’s practice as well.11 In the controversy
over Easter, however, Irenaeus argued for diversity of practice, even though he
held to observing Easter on Sunday. Other bishops who supported that practice
also argued for tolerance and not causing divisions in the church. Influenced
by these arguments, Victor changed his position and withdrew his threat. The
church of Alexandria and other eastern churches were observing Easter Sunday well
before it became a regular practice to observe Easter every year.12 This question
would only finally be settled at the Council of Nicaea, as the letter from that
council to the Egyptian bishops reports.
We also send
you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy Pasch, namely that in
answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren
in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe
the custom of the Romans and of yourselves [Egyptians] and of all of us who
from ancient times have kept Easter together with you. Rejoicing then in these successes
and in the common peace and harmony and in the cutting off of all heresy….13
Here there is
a clear statement which attributes the practice to the Romans and to the Alexandrians
and others who have kept Easter with the Egyptians.
8 See Henry
Chadwick, The Early Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1982), 84-85.
9 See Sullivan,
S.J, From Apostles to Bishops, 151-152.
10 Irenaeus, Against
Heresies, III.3.2, as quoted in Sullivan, 146-147, where Sullivan quotes
the letter preserved in Eusebius, History of the Church V
11 See Sullivan,
S.J, From Apostles to Bishops, 153.
12 See Chadwick,
The Early Church, 84-85.
13 See the end
of the letter of Nicaea to the Egyptians, in Norman P. Tanner, S.J, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils: Nicaea I to Lateran V, vol. 1 (London: Sheed
& Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990), 19.
2.3
Cyprian of Carthage and Stephen of Rome
Cyprian
(200/210 - 258), was born in North Africa, probably at Carthage. He became Christian
about the year 245 and a member of the clergy shortly afterward. Four years
later Cyprian was elected bishop of Carthage. Less than one year after his
consecration as bishop, the emperor Decius decreed that all should offer
sacrifices to the gods and get a certificate to prove they had done so. Cyprian
went into exile in a safe place outside the city. During the persecution that
lasted one year, a great number of Christians, including members of the clergy,
were not able to resist the pressure of the emperor, and they offered
sacrifices to the idols or they bought false certificates attesting that they
offered sacrifices. Others had died as martyrs, which still others had suffered
in prison. The latter were regarded as confessors and were thought to have
spiritual authority to forgive sins, while the former were seen as apostates.
When Cyprian returned at the end of the persecution, he encountered opposition from
the confessors, who had been receiving the lapsed into communion again, in
defiance of his explicit instructions to wait until the North African bishops
could meet in synod to decide on a common policy in regard to the lapsed.14
Cyprian’s
famous treatment of Matthew 16:18-20, the “Petrine text,” occurs in his treatise
On the Unity of the Catholic Church, written during this period when
there was schism in Rome and the threat of schism in Carthage over forgiveness
of the lapsed. In chapter 4 of the treatise Cyprian discusses the role of Peter
as symbol and source of the unity of the Church and its episcopate. Complex
textual issues and scholarly debates regarding the two editions of chapter 4 in
that treatise are beyond the scope of this thesis.15 But it must be noted here that Cyprian had high
regard for the Petrine role and that in the mid-third century the question of
whether it applied to all the bishops equally or especially or solely to the Roman
bishop was just beginning to emerge.16 Cyprian and Stephen (254-257), bishop of Rome, came into
conflict over the validity of baptism by schismatics and heretics, specifically
those who had been baptized by Novatianists, who were unwilling to forgive the
sin of apostasy, and now wanted to become Catholic Christians. The question is
whether they had been truly baptized or not. Should they be baptized (or
rebaptized) when they joined the Catholic church? Cyprian and the North African
bishops said they had to be baptized, as that was the theology and practice of
the church there. Stephen said they were already validly baptized, as that was
the traditional Roman theology and practice, and they only had to be received
into the church with the laying on of hands for the forgiveness of the sin of
schism. Despite invoking his Petrine authority and Roman tradition, Stephen was
not able to persuade Cyprian and the North African bishops to abandon their
theology and practice. The two churches remained in communion; both Cyprian
(258) and Stephen (257) died in the revival of persecution under the emperor
Valerius.17 Although
Stephen was not able to impose his will on Cyprian, he had not doubt about his
authority: Pur non prendendo in considerazione che le prerogative di Pietro
siano state trasmesse ai soli vescovi di Roma [2nd. edition], tuttavia essa
associa strettamente la figura dell’Apostolo Pietro alla Chiesa romana e al
servizio dell’unità del corpo episcopale…18
Minnerath is
finding the truth, namely that Cyprian did not recognize in the bishop of Rome
a special gift that he continues to have from Jesus’ time, but according to
Minnerath, Cyprian closely associates Peter’s figure to the Roman church, and
at the service of unity of the episcopal body. It is also important to look at
Stephen’s view on his mission as bishop of Rome.
Quanto a
Stefano, egli rivendicava per sé il primatus che Cipriano aveva riconosciuto
a Pietro nel De unitate 5TP, nel senso di primo chiamato, rispetto al quale
gli altri apostoli e vescovi saranno dei secondi.19
Stephen
understood his primatus as power to impose the Roman faith on the whole
Church. Therefore his ministry shows the beginnings of a claim for a primatial
jurisdiction. Minnerath notes that the first known of the use of Matthew 16:19
belongs to Pope Callistus I (217- 222.)20
14 See Cyprian, Letter
55.4-5, Clarke, Letters of St. Cyprian, 4.
15 – See
Cyprian, De Lapsis and De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate. Text and
translation by Maurice Bévenot, S.J. (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1971),
61-65. For the context of the treatise and the question of chapter 4, see
Bévenot’s introduction, X-XV.
16 For a brief
discussion of ch. 4 and related texts, see Sullivan, From Apostles to
Bihsops, 192-199
17 See Sullivan,
From Apostles to Bishops, 193.212-214. Another significant text is
related with bishop Firmilian of Caesarea. Pope Stephen tried to impose the
Roman tradition on the Church of Asia Minor, not only of North Africa, See
Ibid, 214-216.
18 Roland Minnerath,
“La Tradizione Dottrinale del Primato di Pietro nel Primo Millennio,” Congregazione
per la Dottrina della Fede. Il Primato del Successore di Pietro nel
Ministero della Chiesa. Considerazioni della Congregazione per la
Dottrina della Fede. Testo e Commenti. (Città del vaticano: Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, 2002), 55.
19 Minnerath, “La
Tradizione Dottrinale del Primato di Pietro nel Primo Millennio,” 57-58.
20 Minnerath, “La
Tradizione Dottrinale del Primato di Pietro nel Primo Millennio,” 56-58.
2.4
Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata: homoousios and the Logos theology
In this
section I will briefly present two theological disputes in the 260s that
anticipated the trinitarian controversies that would preoccupy the East for most
of the fourth century. Both disputes demonstrate the role of synods in addressing
theological controversies. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (247-c. 263), was
called on to deal with a clash among churches in Libya over the Logos theology
of Origen, which held that the Father and the Son (Logos) each had a
distinct person or hypostasis. That theology was challenged by those holding
a modalist view, which regarded Father and Son as essentially the same, so that
the names only referred to different characteristics or aspects of God rather
than any internal distinctions in God’s being. Dionysius was so opposed to
modalism that he claimed the Father and Son were completely different from each
other and not “of one substance” (homoousios; the term that would
become a key word in the Nicene creed). The modalists appealed for support to
Dionysius, bishop of Rome (258-268), who, like many westerners, put great
emphasis on the unity of God. He replied by holding a synod in Rome and then writing
to the church in Alexandria, without naming anyone specifically, censuring
“those who divide the divine monarchy into three separate hypostases and
three deities.” Dionysius of Alexandria held to his views, however, and there
does not seem to have been any break in communion between the two churches.21 The
conflicting approaches to trinitarian theology would characterize East and West
in the next century.22
In another
dispute, Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch (260-272), was a critic of the Logos
theology and disliked the idea of three distinct hypostases in the
Trinity. He asserted without any nuance that God and his Word or Wisdom are one
(homoousios) without distinction. Unity of substance (homoousios)
was heard in this context as numerical identity of Father and Son, hence taken
to be modalism. A synod in Antioch condemned and deposed Paul in 268, but he
was not removed from his see until 272 when the emperor Aurelian conquered the
kingdom of Palmyra which had controlled the eastern provinces since 260. Aurelian
then had to decide whom to recognize as the legitimate the bishop of Antioch.
He chose the bishop in communion with Rome: whomever “the bishops of Italy and
Rome should communicate in writing.” Aurelian’s decision was fateful: “It was
the first time that an ecclesiastical dispute had to be settled by the secular
power.”23
21 In this
controversy, Dionysius of Alexandria rejected the term homoousios, later
the keyword of the creed at Nicaea, while Dionysius of Rome sided with the
modalists, a position also rejected in the fourth century, but which the East
continued to suspect the West of holding.
22 As quoted in
Chadwick, Early Church, 114; see also Chadwick, The Church in Ancient
Society, 161-165.
23 Chadwick, Early
Church, 114-15; see also Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society,
165-69.
3.
Miltiades, Sylvester and Council of Arles
3.1 Pope
Miltiades
Miltiades
(died c. 314) was of African origin and became part of Pope Marcellinus’ clergy
in Rome. He was elected bishop of Rome in 311 after a vacancy of the see of one
or two years. His pontificate was characterized by his intervention in the
Donatist controversy. In Africa that intransigent movement was dividing the
church. The emperor asked Miltiades’ mediation, because the contested election
of Caecilian as Catholic bishop of Carthage in 311-312 provoked a strong
reaction from the Donatists who protested to the proconsul of Africa, Anulinus,
identifying the new bishop as a traditor. Donatists usually gave the
appellation traditores to bishops or clergy who surrendered the
Scriptures to Roman officials during the persecution of Diocletian. Therefore,
according to this rigorist group, sacraments administered by Caecilian were
invalid and, since the Cathlolic Church was in communion with Caecilian, it
shared his state of apostasy, so that the Donatiststs believe that they alone were
the true church. Thus, Anulinus referred to the emperor Constantine the
Donatists’ request to have the arbitration of bishops from Gaul. But the
emperor was annoyed by the case and asked the Pope to resolve it. Constantine
sent a letter to Miltiades that is the first letter that an emperor sent to a
bishop of Rome, and included a copy of the documents that the proconsul gave
him about the question. Constantine defined the quarrel as “of very little importance,”
and at the end of the letter to the bishop of Rome he wrote: “I bear so much respect
for the legitimate catholic Church that I do not wish you to tolerate any
public schism or dissension, wherever it may be.”24 Constantine commissioned Miltiades, together with the
bishops of Cologne, Autun, and Arles, to judge the matter in Rome after hearing
the bishop Caecilian and Donatus. The synod was held at the domus Faustae in
Laterano on October 2, 313, and pronounced a judgment in favor of Caecilian
and excommunicated Donatus. The bishops also suggested measures to reconcile
both sides in accordance with the imperial will. But the Donatists were not
satisfied with that judgment and they sent an appeal to the emperor.25
24 See Élisabeth
Paoli,, “Miltiades,” The Papacy: An Encyclopedia., general ed. Philippe
Levillain, vol. 2 (New York: Routledge, 2002), 993.
25 J. Chapin,
"Miltiades, Pope, St." New Catholic Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Vol.
9. (Detroit: Gale, 2003). 640. New Catholic Encyclopedia Complete. Web.
3 May 2010. http://go.galegroup.com.proxy.bc.edu.
3.2 Pope
Sylvester I and the council of Arles
Pope
Miltiades died in 310 or 311, and Sylvester I (?-335) was elected bishop of
Rome. Sylvester was born in Rome, son of the priest Rufinus, and became priest
himself under the episcopate of Marcellus. He was bishop of Rome for 22 years,
and his pontificate is one of the longest in Church history. Sylvester served
the Church in a period of great changes. The “innovations” began during
Miltiades’ episcopate with freedom of worship, and found their realization
during Sylvester’s time. In Rome, Sylvester continued to deal with the
Donatists, who had appealed for the emperor’s help. Constantine convoked a
council at Arles, in August 314, which 33 bishops and several lower-ranking
clergy attended from all over the West. Sylvester himself did not participate,
either because of his recent consecration or because he was reluctant to attend
a council convened by the emperor. However, he was represented by two priests
and two deacons who at the council were more observers than representatives. The
Fathers sent a “highly deferential letter (dilectissimus papa,
gloriosissimus”)26 to the bishop of Rome in which they regretted his
absence and communicated the decisions taken, sure of his agreement. In
particular, they informed the Pope about some decisions taken regarding the
date of Easter, communion, and baptism, and they were confident in the Pope’s will
to make these rules known to the churches. By asking the bishop of Rome to fix
the date of Easter in a “global letter,” the bishops at Arles were acknowledging
his authority and primacy in the West. Sylvester established a precedent by not
attending the council of Arles. It became customary that the bishop of Rome did
not take part in a synod which did not meet in Rome. That situation remained
unchanged for all of the first millennium.27 At Arles, finally, the Fathers again condemned the
Donatists and recognized the legitimacy of bishop Caecilian of Carthage. According
to Chadwick, Constantine’s expectation of the Christian East was soon
disappointed because he discovered that, as the West was afflicted by Donatism,
the eastern bishops were split in two by the Arian controversy. During his long
pontificate Sylvester had to confront Donatism and Arianism, two heresies which
continued for a long time to disrupt the peace of the Church.28
26 Paoli,
“Sylvester I,” The Papacy: An Encyclopedia, Levillain, vol. 3, 1418.
27 See Moeller
(a cura di), Storia Ecumenica della Chiesa, 126.
28 Paoli,
“Sylvester I,” The Papacy: An Encyclopedia, Levillain, vol. 3,
1418-1420.
4. The
Council of Nicaea
4.1 The
Arian Controversy
In Alexandria
the legacy of Origen’s Logos-theology became a source of conflict between
Alexander, bishop of that city, and Arius (250 or 256-336), one of his
presbyters. Expounding on the relationship of the Son to the Father, Alexander
stressed the eternal generation and the equality of the Word (Logos)
with the Father. In opposition, Arius asserted that the Son was neither equal
to the Father nor eternal, but had a beginning; if he had a beginning, then,
“there was when he was not,” hence the Son was among the things created and not
truly God. The conflict rapidly escalated and divided the episcopate in the East,
with most Egyptian bishops supporting Alexander and others, including Eusebius
of Caesarea (the church historian) and Eusebius of Nicomedia (seat of the
imperial residence before Constantinople became the capital), supporting Arius.
Constantine was dismayed by the controversy, finding the matter insignificant
but the divisions undesirable, and wanted it resolved quickly. To that end he
sent the bishop Hosius of Cordova, his ecclesiastical advisor, to mediate and
to announce a council for Ancyra in 325. In Alexandria Hosius sided with
Alexander, after which he traveled to Antioch to estimate the support Arius was
receiving. While there, Hosius presided at a council (324/ early 325?) that
produced an anti-Arian statement of faith. This council condemned Arius in anticipation
of confirmation by the council at Ancyra, and also excommunicated Eusebius of
Caesarea and other two bishops who supported Arius.29 Constantine responded by
moving the council to Nicaea (near Nicomedia), “so he could personally control
the proceedings.”30 As we shall see, the bishops gathered at Nicaea
condemned Arius’ theology and produced a creed affirming that the Son is “of
one substance with the Father” (homoousios), which all but two of the
bishops signed.
29 See Chadwick,
The Church in Ancient Society, 196. Chadwick writes Ankyra, but Peter
L’Huillier, Archbishop, The Church of the Ancient Councils. The Disciplinary
Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils (New York: St. Vladimir Seminary
Press, 1996), 67, and Jedin (History of the Church: Vol.II, 62) write “Ancyra.”
30 Chadwick, The
Early Church, 130.
4.2
Constantine and the Church
Before the
council of Nicaea, regional and provincial synods had taken place during times
of persecution. But, the reason why the Council of Nicaea became possible is to
be found in emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan of 313, because that imperial
act established peace that allowed the Church to express more freely her faith.
Constantine commanded that the bishops of the Council of Nicaea (325) meet and
arrive at a decision. He also offered hospitality to the Fathers of that
meeting. Thus, he played an important role in calling the bishops to meet
together and to figure out the right way to solve very delicate and problematic
issues.31 Among
the bishops that Constantine invited to the imperial Council of Nicaea were
those who had suffered during Diocletian’s persecution and with the signs on their
bodies were continuing to witness to the faith that sustained them in the past
Roman persecution. They were happy to meet in a time of peace with no fear of
imperial authority, for Constantine treated them as friends and brothers. He was
determined to do right in his concrete political actions, sustained by divine
will. In a noteworthy way, Constantine in that period was exercising a certain
type of leadership for the entire Church while the role of the bishops of Rome
in the same context remained relatively obscure and undetermined.32
31 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 15. A legend reports that Pope Sylvester had
baptized Constantine, see Antonina Harbus, Helena of Britain in Medieval
Legend (Suffolk: St Edmundsbury Press, 2002), 23. Web. 5 May 2010,
32 See Robert B.
Eno, S.S., The Rise of the Papacy (Eugene: Wipf &Stock, 1990), 48.
4.3
Convocation, composition, process
On 20 May
325, at the solemn opening of the council of Nicaea the emperor emphasized the
importance of achieving peace and unity. At the council about 220 bishops were
present, almost all Greek.33 The western delegates were represented by Hosius, the
Spanish bishop, the bishop of Carthage, two Roman presbyters representing
Sylvester of Rome, and perhaps three other western bishops. Chadwick writes
that the western representatives who attended the council were not so many, but
few and influential.34 Pope Sylvester was not consulted by the Emperor about
the calling of the council. He was invited, as were all the bishops, but did
not attend. His delegates did not preside at the council, Hosius of Cordova,
advisor to Constantine presided. He knew well the debate on the Arian controversy
in the East (see above.) However, the participation of the Latin
representatives was relevant for at the end of the council, they were the first
to sign the decrees after Hosius, and their signing in the name of the Pope was
understood as the papal confirmation of the decrees. Constantine as emperor had
great influence upon the Fathers, often expressed his kindness to the members
of the council, and was helpful at the gathering in many ways, even giving
banquets at the beginning and end of the council, which coincided with the
thirtieth anniversary of his accession.
33 See Chadwick,
The Early Church, 130; For a broad panorama of informations see also
Karl Baus et all, The Imperial Church From Constantine to the Early Middle
Ages, 23-24; L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils, 18.
34 See Henry
Chadwick, , East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From
Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2005), 14.
4.4 Doctrinal
decisions and the Creed
At the
council, Constantine deplored the censure of Eusebius of Caesarea and declared his
support for him.35 This did not mean the emperor agreed with Arius’ theology.
The creed was astonishingly signed by 218 out of 220 bishops, i.e., except 2
bishops from Lybia. In the formula the Fathers approved, there is the
affirmation that the Son is “of one substance [homoousios] with the
Father;” which clearly contradicts the doctrine of Arius. In the creed’s concluding
anathema, the council also condemned propositions such as “the Son is metaphysically
or morally inferior to the Father and belongs to the created order.” A fact
that will be the beginning of a real problem is the different understanding of
the crucial term homoousios by the bishops who signed the conciliar text
(see next chapter). Indeed, the assertion “consubstantial” (homoousios)
is a declaration of identity, i.e., that the Father and the Son are “of the
same substance.” But this definition was found ambiguous, because some thought
that sameness was “personal or specific identity,” but for others it meant “a
much broader, generic identity.”36 In addition to this doctrinal issue, the council
helped the churches of Syria to join Egypt and Rome in their calculation of the
date of Easter, and issued twenty canons (see the coming section.)37
35 See Chadwick,
The Early Church, 130.
36 See Chadwick,
The Early Church, 130. ; L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient
Councils, 19; Karl Baus et all, The Imperial Church From Constantine to the
Early Middle Ages, 24-25.
37 See Chadwick,
The Early Church, 131.
5. Canons
of Nicaea on episcopal order and metropolitan bishops
There are no
extant authentic acts of the council, but there are texts from it that doubtlessly
are genuine. The Fathers at Nicaea felt that they were assisted by the Holy
Spirit in producing the symbol of faith, 20 disciplinary canons and a letter
from that synod to the Egyptians.38 In this section, I will briefly consider some significant
canons of Nicaea. The canons that I will discuss reflect and confirm previous
practices of episcopal order, collegiality, and synods. With the canons at
Nicaea the council meant to recognize these practices and to give them a more
explicit foundation and structure. The 20 canons which the council approved
deal with significant issues: canons 1-3, 9-10, 17, 18, 20 deal with clergy;
4-7 with conflict in jurisdictions; 15-16 with the translation of bishops from
one see to another; canon 8 and 19 deal each with cases of apostasy. Here, I
will focus my discussion particularly on canon 6.39
38 L’Huillier, The
Church of the Ancient Councils, 21.
39Tanner,
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1-19. See Chadwick, The Early
Church, 3, 130.
5.1
Canons 4, 5, 7.
Canon 4 deals
with the number of bishops needed to appoint a bishop, and the procedure to be
followed.
It is by all
means desirable that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops of the
province. But if this is difficult because of some pressing necessity or the
length of the journey involved, let at least three come together and perform
the ordination, but only after the absent bishops have taken part in the vote
and given their written consent. But in each province the right of confirming
the proceedings belongs to the metropolitan bishop.
The Fathers
with this canon tried to avoid abuses in the ordination of bishops and to
insure that their ordinations would be recognized by their fellow bishops.
Canon 5
concerns the excommunicated, who must not be received by others. Moreover, it
establishes the duty of bishops to hold synods twice a year.
Concerning
those, whether of the clergy or the laity, who have been excommunicated, the
sentence is to be respected by the bishops of each province, according to the
canon which forbids those expelled by some to be admitted by others. But let an
inquiry be held to ascertain whether anyone has been expelled from the
community because of pettiness or quarrelsomeness or any such ill nature on the
part of the bishop. Accordingly, in order that there may be proper opportunity for
inquiry into the matter, it is agreed that it would be well for synods to be
held each year in each province twice a year, so that these inquiries may be
conducted by all the bishops of the province assembled together, and in this
way by general consent those who have offended against their own bishop may be
recognized by all to be reasonably excommunicated, until all the bishops in
common may decide to pronounce a more lenient sentence on these persons. The
synods shall be held at the following times: one before Lent, so that, all pettiness
being set aside, the gift offered to God may be unblemished; the second after
the season of autumn.
This canon is
about clergy and laity, whereas later councils will deal mainly with conflicts arising
between a metropolitan and bishops under him, or between bishops. The situation
in which a bishop is accused by a brother bishop may have been one case that
the legislators had in mind. That certainly was an issue later in the canon of
Serdica, but canon 5 itself only talks about clergy or laity who have been
excommunicated.40
In upholding
the authority of bishops who have excommunicated either clergy or laity, canon
5 also provides a mechanism for appealing decisions that were due to capriciousness
or ill will on the part of a bishop. In such cases, appeal may be made to a
synod of all the bishops of a province gathered at the twice-yearly meetings that
the canon requires. Until an excommunication has been reversed by a provincial
synod, other bishops are not to receive that person into communion. Later, in
the doctrinal and political disputes that continued after Nicaea, the right of
appeal from unjust excommunications would focus on the deposition of pro-Nicene
bishops (most notably Athanasius) and appeals to Rome on their behalf.41
Canon 7
concerns the bishop of Aelia, i.e. Jerusalem. It held that Jerusalem should be seen
as having a chair of honor by reason of the ancient tradition.
Since there
prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia
is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving
the dignity proper to the metropolitan.
The see of
Jerusalem should be honored, but not to the detriment of the metropolitan of the
province, the bishop of Caesarea. This canon deserves attention here because it
anticipates an issue that will arise explicitly at the council of Chalcedon,
namely the patriarchal status of Jerusalem in relation to the other four patriarchates
as they had evolved since Nicaea.
40 At the
western council of Serdica (342-343), which the eastern bishops had refused to
attend, they had rejected the notion of Roman primacy (jurisdiction) in these
cases. In turn the western bishops had declared, separately, that “to honour
the memory of the most holy apostle Peter,” that the bishop of Rome could
receive appeals and appoint bishops from a neighboring province to hear them.
41 See Chadwick,
East and West,15-16; also see Karl Baus et all, The Imperial Church From
Constantine to the Early Middle Ages, 35-40.
5.2
Canon 6
Now, let us
study the debated and important canon six:
The ancient
customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which
the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places, since a similar custom
exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other
provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following
principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan,
this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however
two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all,
provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote
of the majority shall prevail.42
There are
several issues in regard to canon 6 that I will try to identify clearly and
treat in a logical order: 1) the ecclesiastical and civil provinces and the
jurisdiction of bishops in the major metropolitan cities; 2) the meaning of the
analogy to Rome’s jurisdiction in the West; 3) the reference to Antioch and the
lack of specification in regard to the territory over which it has (or will
later have) jurisdiction.
42 Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 8-9.
5.2.1
Ecclesiastical and civil territories
Both canon 6
and canon 5 presuppose the assimilation of the ecclesiastical district with the
civil district arrangement of metropolises, provinces, and dioceses.43
According to
Chadwick44 and L’Huillier,45 the primary
point of canon 6 is that it clarifies the rights of the bishop of Alexandria to
function as a super-metropolitan bishop by assigning Lybia and Pentapolis to
his jurisdiction in addition to Egypt, the province of which Alexandria is the
metropolis. Chadwick considers this the most important canon of the council,
and observes that Alexandria Rome and Antioch “were held to be the three senior
cities of the empire.”46 He also argues that Libya and Pentapolis were
particularly important because Arius and many of his supporters were associated
with Libya, including the two bishops who did not sign the Creed.47
L’Huillier
offers an additional perspective on the purpose of the canon. He claims that the
“the principle of territorial accommodation was not yet considered as
normative”48 and
that the purpose of canon 6 was to recognize officially “the rights of
Alexandria over several civil provinces.”49 He adds that Diocletian’s reforms had removed Lybia
and Pentapolis from Alexandria’s metropolitan jurisdiction politically, so
canon 6 is going beyond the civil district in this regard.50 Also
L’Huillier observes:
We see in
this canon the legal charter forming the basis for the existence of higher ecclesiastical
jurisdictions.
This accords
with Chadwick and what I suggested earlier in these comments about Nicaea giving
a foundation to arrangements of ecclesiastical administration and jurisdiction.
Minnerath basically agrees with these interpretations.51
43 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 19; see Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society,
203.
44 Henry
Chadwick,“Faith and Order at the Council of Nicaea: A Note on the Background of
the Sixth Canon,” Harvard Theological Review 53 (1960), 175-79.
45 L’Huillier, The
Church of the Ancient Councils, 46-48.
46 See Chadwick,
The Church in Ancient Society, 203.
47 Chadwick,“Faith
and Order at the Council of Nicaea…,” 175-79.
48 L’Huillier, The
Church of the Ancient Councils, 47.
49 Ibid, 46.
50 Ibid, 48.
51 See
Minnerath, “La Tradizione Dottrinale del Primato di Pietro nel Primo
Millennio,” 59-61.
5.2.2 Rome
and canon 6
L’Huillier52 sees the reference to Rome as simply an
analogy to the way Rome exercises authority and jurisdiction over other areas
(unspecified in the canon) in the West that correspond to the civil territory
of the vicarius urbis – central and southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia,
Corsica. He argues that the canon does not refer to the much broader area that
would later be part of the Roman patriarchate.53 Moreover, he asserts that it is important to read
this canon in its historical context and not in light of later understandings
of patriarchates that come to clearest expression at Chalcedon. Hefele argues that
this canon is not about the primacy of the Roman bishop “but simply his power
as a patriarch.”54 L’Huillier disagrees with Hefele’s identification of
Rome as a patriarchate at this time and so does Chadwick.
Chadwick
argues convincingly that canon 6 is not at all about Roman primacy, but that it
came to be used that way by Roman bishops from Siricius (384-399) onwards.55
Now, I will
report the two most important points on which other scholars also agree with
Chadwick. First, the Nicene canons became attached to the Serdican canons,
which include appeal to Rome, and the resultant text is regarded in the West
for a long time as the canons of Nicaea. Secondly, later Roman summaries and
translations of canon 6 drop references to Lybia and Pentapolis and also omit
reference to Antioch, turning the canon into primarily a statement about Roman
patriarchal authority.56 At the council of Chalcedon the Roman legate quoted a
version of canon 6 current in Rome in the early fifth century, which began with
the assertion: “The Roman church has always had a primacy” (Ecclesia Romana
semper habuit primatus [sic]).57 As Chadwick observes: “It was an exegesis [of canon
6] much favored at Rome between Damasus and Leo, where the question of
precedence was a major preoccupation. The original context is quite different.”58 This is the
form of the canon to which Ratzinger refers when he states: “The word primates
appears for the first time related with the function of the Roman See at the
Council of Nicaea in canon 6.”59
52 L’Huillier, The
Church of the Ancient Councils, 46-48.
53 Ibid, 47.
54 Charles
Joseph Hefele, D.D. The Christian Councils, From the Original Documents, to
the Close of the Council of Nicea, A.D. 325. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1894), 394.
55 Chadwick,“Faith
and Order at the Council of Nicaea…,” 187. See also Ibid, 189: “At Nicaea in
325 the Roman primacy was not an issue, and it would be anachronistic to expect
any reference thereto. Nor were the bishops interested in defining Rome’s
patriarchate in Italy….The issue of Rome’s supra-provincial standing in Italy
is simply taken for granted because it justifies the continuance of comparable
powers in the see of Alexandria.”
56 Ibid, 188.
57 Chadwick, “Faith
and Order at the Council of Nicaea…,” 188; see also See Chadwick, East and West,16.
Chadwick also asserts that in the East the western canons about Roman
appellate jurisdiction were understood to refer to the Latin
patriarchate, not to the East (17).
58 Chadwick, “Faith
and Order at the Council of Nicaea…,” 181-182.
59 See Joseph
Ratzinger, Le Nouveau Peuple de Dieu (Paris: Aubier Montaigne, 1971),
43-45. Here Ratzinger appears to have in mind the Latin version of canon 6 read
at the council of Carthage in 419, and perhaps also mistranslates or
misinterprets primatibus in the Latin title of canon 6 (proteion
in the Greek).
5.2.3 The
reference to Antioch
L’Huillier
writes that the mention of Antioch, like the mention of Rome, is for the sake of
comparison or analogy and is likewise not speaking of Antioch as a
patriarchate.60 Furthermore, for Antioch, too, the territory is not
specified and, unlike Rome, there is no contemporary information to know what
it might have included; we only know that there were considered to be
precedents from Syria similar to those in Italy for Rome.61
60 L’Huillier, The
Church of the Ancient Councils, 46 and 48; Chadwick,“Faith and Order at the
Council of Nicaea…,” 182.
61 Chadwick,“Faith
and Order at the Council of Nicaea…,” 182; see 182-187 for subsequent issues
about Antioch’s jurisdiction.
6. Nicaea
as a new kind of council
There are
important historical questions in understanding the significance of the Council
of Nicaea. Here I consider three key issues: whether the council consciously intended
to speak with authority to and for the whole church; its claim to be a “great
and holy council” guided by the Holy Spirit; and what it means to call Nicaea
and ecumenical council.
6.1 The
authority of Nicaea
As we will
see in the next chapter, it took more than 50 years for the authority of the Council
of Nicaea to be widely accepted. It is only with the council of Constantinople
in 381 that the symbol of Nicaea became the de facto norm of faith for the
Universal Church. Canon 1 of that council recognized the faith of the “318
Fathers” gathered at Nicaea, and soon afterwards the emperor Theodosius I
ordered his subjects to “confess the religion that the apostle Peter... taught
and which is confessed today by Damasus, the bishop of Rome...and Peter, the
bishop of Alexandria.”62
In regard to
the authority of the council, it is important to address the question whether the
Fathers of Nicaea were conscious of their authority as a gathering of the
universal church. De Vries argues that in their dogmatic definition and canons
the bishops at Nicaea claimed an authority for their decisions in ways that
previous synods had not.63 In regard to the authority of the council’s Creed,
Grillmeier asserts that at the time of Nicaea “there is no distinction yet in
regard to the theological assessment of synods.”64 Ortiz de Urbina claims that something completely new
occurs at Nicaea: the proclamation of the first dogmatic definition. A posteriori,
with today’s categories, we can recognize the Nicene symbol as a dogmatic asssertion,
but we cannot use the same langauge in the context of the fourth century.
In regard to
the authority of the canons, there are differences in scholarly opinion about their
intended authority and their effectiveness. De Vries demonstrates from the
council’s manner of speaking in its documents that it intended the canons to be
observed by the whole church for the sake of its good order. But he also
acknowledges that it is not possible to know whether they thought the canons
were to be held in perpetuity. Ortiz de Urbina argues that the canons were
meant to apply definitively to the whole church,65 while Bardy asserts that they were meant to address
the necessity of the time and to apply only to the East.66 Scholars disagree
as well on the effectiveness of the canons. De Vries claims that for the most
part the canons of Nicaea were observed, while Bardy argues that they remained
nearly a dead letter in the West67
and Jalland holds that the later belief in the universal value of the canons
was totally unknown in the fourth century.68
62 I. Ortiz De
Urbina, S.J., Nicée et Constantinople (Paris: Éditions De L’Orante,
1963), 166, De Vries, Orient et Occident, 29.
63 See Ibid,
15-22.
64 See Ibid, 15.
65 See Ibid, 20.
66 See Ibid.
67 See Ibid.
68 See Ibid.
6.2
Holy Spirit and holy council
Fourth-century
synods regularly attested to the important role of the Holy Spirit in their deliberations.
The councils of Arles and Ancyra in 314 both mentioned the guidance of the Spirit,
and Ancyra also referred to itself as “holy.” In 324 the unauthorized synod of
Antioch called itself a “great and holy (hieratike) council.” Therefore,
it is not something new that the Council of Nicaea calls itself “holy.” De
Vries notes that canons 14 and 18 of Nicaea refer to their directives as the
work of a “holy and great council.”69 Batiffol stressed that the Fathers at Nicaea saw
themselves as constituting a “holy (hagia) and great council,” which was
a way to emphasize the new element in the council’s understanding, namely its
intention of addressing the whole Church.70
69 De Vries, Orient
et Occident, 15-18.
70 P. Batiffol, La
Paix Constantinienne et le Catholicisme (Paris: 1914), 364, De Vries, Orient
et Occident, 16.
6.3
Nicaea as an ecumenical council
Did the
Council of Nicaea consider itself an ecumenical council? This has been examined
by some scholars. Congar affirms that only Nicaea can be called “ecumenical” in
the fourth century because only at this Council were all parts of the Church,
East and West, represented. He stresses that the Fathers of the fourth century
acted almost unanimously (two bishops refused to sign the Creed) in their decisions.71 De Vries
reminds Congar that the term “ecumenical” was also applied to the first Council
of Constantinople. Only 150 bishops were present; none of them from the west,
not even papal legates. So it was not, strictly speaking, ecumenical - even though
it was later recognized as such. For Athanasius the term “ecumenical synod”
means that “the whole universe is represented” (through the bishops) at the
Council. Furthermore, he insists that unanimity is a requisite in order to
claim that a synod is truly ecumenical. In addition, the decree of an ecumenical
synod must conform to the Holy Scripture, the teaching of the Apostles and the
Tradition of the holy Fathers. For Athanasius, the participation of the bishop
of Rome is not necessary to assure the ecumenical character of a synod.72 Here, it would
seem that Athanasius does not recognize the idea of a universal Roman or
Petrine primacy in this period. De Vries did not add other comments on Athanasius’
thought. It seems that the most significant thing is not the participation of
the Roman bishop at a council, but his later recognition of a certain council.
No councils before Nicaea were, strictly speaking, “universal” in character nor,
as we shall see in the next chapter, were the many synods between Nicaea and
Constantinople I ultimately recognized as ecumenical.
71 See Yves
Congar, "Bulletin d’Ecclésiologie (1939-1946)," RSPT 31 (1947), 289;
De Vries, Orient et Occident, 25.
72 See Ibid.
Chapter 2:
The Petrine ministry and the Structures of the Church at the Time of Constantinople
I
1.
Context: Developments between Nicaea and Constantinople I
In this
chapter I will give a view of the Council of Constantinople I (381) and of the structures
of the Church of the late fourth century. I will start with a rapid description
of the context of the Church after the Council of Nicaea, and the role played
by the bishop of Rome, Damasus, in that period. Then, I will continue
presenting the Council of Constantinople I, especially looking at canon 3
through the comments of some scholars, and adding also m reflections on it.
1.1 A
Half-Century of Conflict after the Council of Nicaea
The Council
of the 318 Fathers defined the dogma of the divinity of the Word (Logos),
the Son of God by declaring him to be of the same being or substance as the
Father, using the Greek term homoousios (of one substance or being) to
express this, but without specifying its meaning. After the Council of Nicaea
finished its work, it soon became clear that many eastern bishops were not
convinced of the orthodoxy of this term, since it seemed to them to obscure or
threaten the real distinction between Father and Son. In addition to the
problems with homoousios and the theological work necessary to clarify
its meaning, there were also political complications that arose from the desire
of Constantine and later his son Constantius II to bring the continuing
controversy after Nicaea to an end.
By 328,
Constantine was unhappy about the ongoing disputes. Influenced by Eusebius, bishop
of Nicomedia (the imperial residence at the time), who was a strong supporter
of Arius, Constantine ordered Athanasius to receive Arius into communion in
Alexandria. Athanasius refused, explaining his position so effectively when
called to Constantinople that the emperor let the matter drop. Eusebius
engineered the deposition of prominent Nicene bishops in these years, including
Athanasius, who was banished to Trier at the synod of Tyre in 335, the first of
five exiles he would endure. After Constantine’s death in 337, Athanasius was
restored to the see of Alexanderia. A series of eastern councils during the
reign of Constantius II attempted to resolve the question of homoousios in
ways that brought them into growing conflict with the West. During the 340s and
350s those councils became increasingly Arian in the confessions of faith they
produced. In 340 Athanasius was again deposed and exiled and an Arian bishop,
George of Cappadocia, was installed in Alexandria.
Conflicting
understandings of homoousios led many eastern bishops to accuse the West
of holding a modalist or Sabellian understanding of the term which took it to
mean the numerical identity of Father and Son, hence that Father and Son were
simply modes of divine being with no permanence in themselves. The eastern bishop
Marcellus of Ancyra was condemned for such views at the council of Antioch in 341.
Alternative interpretations emerged from the eastern synods of the 340s and
350s and from Arian theologians, which asserted that the Son was simply “like”
(homoios) the Father without mentioning substance or ousia at
all; that he was neither homoousios nor homoiousios (of like
substance) with the Father; and, finally, that he was “unlike” (anomoios)
the Father (the view of Aetius, a layman, which was supported by Eudoxius of
Antioch). By 357, more moderate eastern bishops, led by Basil of Ancyra (who
succeeded Marcellus) had proposed that the term homoiousios (of like
substance) would counter unacceptable interpretations of the key Nicene term.
Although Athanasius was initially opposed to homoiousios and its main
proponent Basil of Ancyra, by 360 he had come to see that its intention was in
accord with Nicaea: “Those who accept the Nicene creed but have doubts about
the term homoousios must not be treated as enemies; we discuss the
matter with them as brothers with brothers; they mean the same as we, and
dispute only about the word.”1 The homoiousian bishops have often been labeled
“semi-Arians,” but their position helped create an alliance of “new Nicenes”
who would ultimately prevail at the Council of Constatinople I.
1 See Chadwick,
The Early Church, 144.
1.2 Pope
Julius and Athanasius
After the
Council of Nicaea it became evident that a great many eastern bishops had not really
accepted the doctrine of Nicaea that the Word who became incarnate was of the same
substance as the Father. This led to their mounting an attack on Athanasius
who, having been a deacon at the Council, was now the bishop of Alexandria, and
was the most ardent defender of the conciliar doctrine. After Athanasius had
been condemned by an eastern synod and deposed from his see, he took refuge in
Rome in 340. Here during Athanasius’ long second exile in the West, Julius
received him into communion, and also Marcellus of Ancyra. Pope Julius
(337-352) held a synod that completely cleared Athanasius of any doctrinal
error, and supported his defense of the doctrine of Nicaea. The Pope also
protested strongly against the judgment that had been passed against the bishop
of Alexandria without any consultation of the bishop of Rome. Julius, along
with a Roman synod, rejected the homoiousian theology, holding fast, as
did most western bishops, to the Nicene doctrine, with the support of the western
emperors.2
2 See
Chadwick’s descripton: “The many bishops who belonged to the ‘central’
conservative tradition represented by the homoiousios formula…,” Ibid,
141-142.
1.3 The
consequences of the Synod of Tyre
The position
of Pope Julius I regarding the Council of Nicaea is not so clear. In his discussions
with Eusebius of Nicomedia, Julius seems to put Nicaea on the same level as the
synod of Antioch and the Roman synod. In rejecting the synod of Tyre, however,
he does seem to consider synods to be reformable. DeVries argues, however, that
although Julius does not clearly articulate the singularity of Nicaea, there is
nothing in his writings that suggests he thought the Nicene symbol was subject
to revision and hence not definitive.3 Indeed, in a letter addressed to the Eusebians,
Julius writes that the Fathers of Nicaea had acted “as if God were present.”4
In regard to
the synod of Tyre, Julius argued that its judgments did not have universal force
because the council had not followed the customary practice of circulating them
to all the churches.
S’il y a eu,
comme vous dites, faute de leur part [Athanase et Marcel], alors il fallait juger
l’affaire selon les canons de l’Eglise et non pas comme cela s’est fait. Vous deviez
nous écrire à tous, afin que soit décrété par tous ce qui était juste. Il se
trouva des évêques qui eurent à souffrir (injustement) et qui avaient été
pasteurs non pas d’une Eglise parmi d’autres mais de ces illustres Eglises fondées
par les apôtres euxmêmes. Au sujet de l’Eglise d’Alexandrie, en particulier,
pourquoi ne nous a-t-on pas écrit? Ignorez-vous donc que la coutume veut qu’on
nous écrive pour commencer et que de ce lieu soit proclamé ensuite ce qui est
juste?... Ce n’est pas là ce que Paul a recommandé, ce n’est pas là ce que nous
ont transmis les Pères: c’est là plutôt un procédé étrange et un usage tout à
fait nouveau. Si je vous écris ces choses, c’est en vue du bien commun et je
vous conjure de les accueillir sans amertume. Car ce que je veux vous
signifier, c’est ce que nous avons reçu du bienheureux apôtre Pierre.5
Erich Casper
notes that here Julius is referring to the ancient understanding that synodal decisions
have the strength of law in the whole Church primarily because of their
reception through a reciprocal exchange of information among the churches. In
the case of Tyre, its decisions should have been communicated to the western churches
and the position of Rome taken as representing them all.6
3 DeVries, Orient
et Occident , 22-23; here De Vries is arguing against H.J. Sieben.
4 Athanasius, Apologia
Contra Arianos 24: PG 67, 492 B.; De Vries, Orient et Occident, 26.
5 As quoted in
De Vries, Orient et Occident, 31.
6 E. Caspar, Geschichte
des Papsttums von den Anfäbis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft (Tubingue: 1930),
150-151, as cited in De Vries, Orient et Occident, 30-31.
1.4 The
canons of Serdica
Pope Julius
strongly defended the right of Athanasius to appeal to the Bishop of Rome against
the decree of an eastern synod, and the right of the bishop of Rome to hear
such an appeal and to act on it. The council of Serdica (342-343) was called by
Constantius II (eastern emperor) and Constans (western emperor) in the hope of
preventing a schism as tensions grew between East and West. Instead, the
council quickly split into separate eastern and western synods which
anathematized each other and broke off communion. The Greek bishops produced an
anti-Arian creed. The western bishops, with some eastern guests, such as
Athanasius present, wrote a number of canons to which, later, the canons of
Nicaea would be attached in western canon collections. The most significant was
probably canon 3c, which provided that in cases where bishops felt unjustly
treated by their metropolitans or provincial councils, they might appeal to the
Roman bishop, who would decide if the appeal had merit and if so, would assign
neighboring bishops to hear the case. Eastern bishops tended to ignore the
canons of Serdica while the West maintained their validity and welcomed the
precedent canon 3c7 set for appeals
to Rome.
7 “If sentence
should be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be
not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it
seems good to your charity, honor the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let
those who gave judgment write to Julius, the neighboring provinces and let him appoint
arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need
a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as
before.” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 14, ed. P. Schaff and H.
Wace (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 417, William J. La Due, The
Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy (New York: Orbis Books
1999), 44.
1.5 Pope
Liberius
In 352 Julius
was succeeded by Liberius (352-366), who likewise held the Nicene doctrine, but
had to deal with Constantius II, who was emperor of both East and West, and was
determined to bring about religious peace by getting all the bishops to agree
to a compromise formula. He first summoned a council at Arles (353), and then
one at Milan (355), at both of which the bishops were obliged to condemn
Athanasius. When Liberius refused to condemn him, insisting that this would
mean condemning the doctrine of Nicaea, he was exiled to Beroea in Thrace.
There, weakening under the pressure put upon him, he condemned Athanasius and
signed the homoiousios formula, upon which he was allowed to return to
Rome. Then Constantius, in order to get all the bishops to agree to a common formula,
summoned the eastern bishops to Seleukia and the western bishops to Rimini in
359.
Under
imperial pressure, the western bishops accepted the formula of the Arianizing
bishop, Valens of Mursa, that, the Father and Son are “alike (homoios)
according to Scripture.” The following year in Constantinople a council called
by the Arian bishop Eudoxius made the same affirmation in the creed it issued.
Liberius, now back in Rome (358), but sharing the episcopate with Felix who had
been made Pope in his absence, was not summoned to the council of Rimini and
did not sign its decree. He subsequently proved himself again faithful to the
Nicene doctrine.
Constantius
II died in 361, two years after the councils of Seleukia and Rimini, and was succeeded
by Julian, known as “the Apostate,” who was not interested in obtaining unity among
Christians, but in restoring pagan religion. He allowed the eastern bishops
loyal to Nicaea who had been exiled to return to their sees, which strengthened
the Nicene position in the East. Julian was succeeded by Valens (364-78), who
favored the homoiousians but did not persecute the bishops who were loyal to
the Nicene doctrine. During this period three bishops of the Cappadocian region
of Asia Minor who were theologians, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and
Gregory of Nazianzus, opened the way to agreement on the Nicene dogma by providing
a better understanding of it by the distinction between the ousia (being),
which is the same in Father and Son, and their hypostases (persons) which
are distinct. However, as the conflict over the Nicene dogma was easing, two new
disagreements arose: on the questions whether the Holy Spirit was truly divine
and whether Jesus had a rational human soul.8
8 For some
history of this period see: Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society,
201-445; Karl Baus et all, The Imperial Church From Constantine to the Early
Middle Ages, 16-90.
1.6 The
Heresies of Macedonius and Apollinaris
Macedonius
had been a homoiousian bishop of Constantinople who was deposed by the Arians
in 360. He was known as the founder of the heresy that denied the divinity of
the Spirit, but the main promoters of that heresy were Eustathius of Sebaste,
Eleusius of Cyzicus, and Marathonius. The Fathers at the Council of Constantinople
(381) called them “Pneumatomachians,” i.e. those who fought against the Spirit.9 The creed
issued by Nicaea had stated only that the Fathers believed “in the Holy Spirit”,
nothing more. Controversy about the divinity of the Holy Spirit started when
Macedonius and his followers who held that the Son was of like being with the
Father, asserted that the Spirit was “only a superior creature.” None of the
heretical works of Eustathius of Sebaste, Eleusius of Cyzicus, and Marathonius,
have come down to us. For that reason we have no first hand knowledge of their argumentations.10
Athanasius
and Basil of Caesarea were very important in developing theological arguments
for the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Athanasius was prominent with his Letters
to Serapion, and Basil of Caesarea was notable with his work On
the Holy Spirit. The history of Gregory of Nazianzus, also known as Gregory
the theologian, may be significant for us to understand better the intricate
history of his time and the connection between the doctrine on the Holy Spirit
and his very difficult life as a bishop. He was made “bishop of an
insignificant little town called Sasima (372),” but he never exercised his
office there.11 In 379 he was asked to lead the Christian community
of Constantinople, and in that last city there was already Demophilus, the
Arian bishop.12 The orthodox answer came soon through these theologian-bishops,
who clarified the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Athanasius and
Basil of Caesarea prepared and simplified the path that Gregory the Theologian
traversed. The fruit of that heritage from Athanasius and Basil was offered in
an outstanding way by Gregory in this text:
The Old
Testament clearly showed the Father, but only dimly showed the Son. The New
Testament revealed the Son and hinted at the divinity of the Spirit. Today the Spirit
lives among us, and is making himself more clearly known. As long as the divinity
of the Father had not been recognized, it was dangerous to preach openly the
Son; in the same way, as long as the divinity of the Son was not admitted, it
was dangerous to impose, if we dare to use such words, the belief in the
divinity of the Spirit as an added burden. You see the order in which God is
revealed, an order that we must respect in our own turn: not revealing everything
in a rush and without discernment but also not keeping anything hidden until
the end of time. The one tendency risked injuring those who were outside and
the other one would have separated us from our own brothers.13
Gregory the
Theologian through that text helps us to appreciate and recognize how God
freely and gradually revealed Himself as one God in three Persons in the
history of salvation. L’Huillier asserts that from this period on, the dogma of
the Trinity had found its definitive expression in Holy Tradition.14
In the
fourth-century, Apollinarianism was a Christological heresy that denied the human
soul in Christ. It took its name from Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea. He was a
friend of Athanasius of Alexandria, and both had been champions of Nicene
orthodoxy. That heresy “signalized the point of transition from the Trinitarian
to the Christological heresies”.15 Apollinaris’s error was that he did not see how
Christ could be one person if he had both a divine intellect and will, and a
human intellect and will. He concluded that for Christ to be one person, the
Divine Word must take the place of a human rational soul. Apollinaris with his
attempt wanted to affirm the faith of Nicaea and protect the integrity of the
incarnate Word, but despite his good intentions, he failed in doing that. Prior
to the Council of Constantinople, Apollinaris’s proposal had already been
condemned by synods of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, because it contradicted
the soteriological principle, articulated by Gregory of Nazianzus, that “what
was not assumed by the Word was not healed.”16 They insisted that for Christ to redeem humanity he
must be fully human, having both a sensitive and rational soul.
9 See
L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils, 102.
10 See Ibid.
11 He assisted
his father in Nazianzus and he undertook an ascetic life in Seleucia.
12 That see
since the exile of Paul in 342 had been continuously occupied byArians. It was
only in 378 the emperor Gratian confirmed of the decision taken by Valens
before his death to allow the return of pro- Nicene bishops to their sees.
Thus, in Constantinople the little group of orthodox hoped to overturn the
situation in the capital, and they approached Gregory the Theologian, probably
with the support and suggestion of St. Basil and other orthodox bishops in the
East. See L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils, 103-104.
13 Gregory of
Nazianzen, Oration XXXI, as cited in L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient
Councils, 103.
14 Ibid.
15 See F.
Chiovaro, "Apollinarianism." New Catholic Encyclopedia. 2nd ed.
Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 559-560. New Catholic Encyclopedia Complete.
Web. 11 Mar. 2010
16 Ibid.
1.7
Damasus
Damasus was
the bishop of Rome (366-384) at the time of the Council of Constantinople. He
was born c. 305 A.D., probably of Spanish background, and grew up in Rome,
where his entire family served the church of that city.17 Before his
episcopal election, we do not know much about Damasus’ career. Certainly, he served
as a deacon of Liberius,18 and he followed his bishop into exile. The difficulties
that arose with the election19 of Damasus
were a direct consequence of the lack of unity in the Roman community. That division
was caused “by the meddling of Constantius II in church affairs, and by his
policy favoring the Arians.”20 Damasus became the bishop of Rome after a massacre
“in a church where 137 lost their lives,” and with the help of the city prefect
he won possession of his see, “but at a fearful price in public discredit to
his church.”21 For a while Jerome was Damasus’ secretary, and later Damasus asked
Jerome to produce a new Latin translation of the Bible, which became known as
the Vulgate.22
Four aspects
of Damasus’ pontificate are in many ways significant for my research. The first
is that since his election as a bishop of Rome, we realized that it was very
important for the other bishops to have a better comprehension of his service
toward the whole Church at a universal level as a successor of Peter. In the
terrible events he faced in Rome, he came to see that the only way to exercise
his ministry was “by stressing the exalted spiritual dignity of his office as
St Peter’s successor.”23 Therefore, as well as defending Roman orthodoxy
against its opponents by allying himself with imperial authority of Theodosius
I, which allowed him to gain the support of the Italian episcopate,24 Damasus often
referred to Rome as the apostolic see, and was indefatigable in promoting the
Roman Primacy.25 For Damasus that primacy was not based on human will,
like synods, and councils, but exclusively on his being the direct successor of
Peter and so the rightful heir of the promises made to him by Christ (Matt.
16:18).26 He
believed that this succession gave him a unique juridical power to bind and
loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline.
Second, it is
important to note the development of the exercise of papal government in the
West at the time of Damasus, which can be called his petrine exercise of
authority. His care for the church of Rome, the tradition of the presence of
the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome, the martyrs, and many other juridical and
practical matters may seem secondary or related only to the West, but those
traditions represent a treasure for the universal Church, not only the Roman
church and the West. Moreover, not secondary for a better understanding of the
role of the successor of Peter, will be to report the process of evolution of
the Roman see.27
Third, in
regard to doctrinal controversies, it is necessary to point out that when the heresies
of Macedonius and Apollinaris came on the scene, Damasus wrote letters
defending the divinity of the Spirit and the full humanity of Christ.28 Moreover, the
eastern churchmen also turned to Rome “as a countermeasure against the
pro-arian policy of Valens and to put an end to the division created, among
others, by the schism of Antioch.” Then, in 377 Damasus gathered a synod to
address the doctrinal conflicts of the East. He published a syllabus, the Tomus
Damasi, containing 24 anathemas against various heretical groups. That
publication became in some ways the western formulation of Nicene orthodoxy,
insisting particularly on the unity of power, will, and action in God.29 Fourth, with
regard to his relations with the eastern episcopate, it is important to note that
he was adamant in his support of Paulinus, one of the two claimants to the see
of Antioch, while the majority of the eastern bishops favored Meletius, and
resented the involvement of Damasus in what they considered an affair to be
handled by themselves.
17 For more
biographical information see Françoise Monfrin, “Damasus I,” Levillain, The
Papacy, Vol. 1, 477.
18 On Liberius
and Felix II see John W. O’Malley, A History of the Popes: From Peter
to the Present (Lanham: Sheed & Ward Book, 2010), 35.
19 See Paul C.
Empie and Austin T. Murphy, Eds., Papal Primacy and the Universal Church.
Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue (V. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing
House, 1974), 80-83.
20 See Monfrin,
“Damasus I,” Levillain, The Papacy, 477. See also See O’Malley, S.J. A
History of the Popes, 34-35.
21 See more See
Chadwick, The Early Church, 160-161.
22 See O’Malley,
S.J. A History of the Popes, 35-36. Damasus wanted all 46
traditionally-used books be included in the Old Testament.
23 See Ibid.
24 The synods of
Rome between 368 and 372 which repeated the condemnation of Auxentius, the
Arian bishop of Milan, helped “to spread the confession of Roman faith in the
Trinity throughout Illyricum and the East (it was communicated to Athanasius of
Alexandria by the deacon Sabinus of Milan), and to affirm the responsibility of
St. Peter’s see for the entire Church.”See Ibid
25 See The
Oxford Dictionary of Popes. “Damasus I, St.” By J. N. D. Kelly. Oxford
University Press Inc. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
Boston College Libraries. 3 March 2010,
26 Ibid.
27 See also: the
exaltation of the burial of the martyrs; control of popular devotion or
heresies; inscriptions of verses engraved in large letters; elaboration of a
Roman theology of the renovatio Urbis; affirmation of the Roman Primacy;
developing of means of episcopal government; synodical institutions and basis
for Church law; reinforcement of some previous functions; Church archives;
decretal Ad Gallos. See Monfrin, “Damasus I,” Levillain, The Papacy,
478-480.
28 See Heinrich
Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum: Definitionum et declarationum de rebus
fidei et morum: Edizione bilingue, a cura di Peter Hünermann (Bologna: EDB,
1996), 144-47 and 149.
29 See Monfrin,
“Damasus I,” Levillain, The Papacy, 479.
1.8
Theodosius
On January
19, 379, Theodosius I (379-395), “a general from Spain and convinced partisan
of Nicene orthodoxy,” was raised by Gratian to the rank of emperor of the
eastern part of the empire. He enacted stringent antipagan laws. He thought to
solve the tensions which were present through another imperial council which
would focus on the Trinitarian creed, finding a better definition for the
divinity of the Holy Spirit.30 On February 28, 380, the same eastern emperor issued
the edict Cunctos populos commanding all to practice “that religion
which the divine Peter the apostle transmitted to the Romans” and which was
taught by Damasus bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria.31 According to
Françoise Monfrin:
The edict of
Thessalonica that was addressed to the people of Constantinople (Cth XVI,
1, 2; CJ 1, 1, 1), recognized officially, for the first time (and in the
East) the exemplary value of Roman communion and Roman primacy,
justified by apostolic tradition (already recognized by the council of
Antioch of 379, which subscribed to the Tome of Damasus). It indeed
defined orthodoxy as communion with Damasus.32
Furthermore,
it imposed civil sanctions on those who would refuse it. Theodosius was concerned
to reestablish public peace in the part of the Empire that he had governed.33
30 See Karl Baus
et all, The Imperial Church From Constantine to the Early Middle Ages,68.
31 See Chadwick,
East and West, 20.
32 Monfrin,
“Damasus I,” Levillain, The Papacy, Vol. 1, 479-480.
33 Ibid.
2. The
Council of Constantinople I
2.1
Convocation of a General Council for the East
By 380 it was
evident that another council was needed to bring the continuing Arian controversy
to a close and to reaffirm Nicaea, as well as to address the new issues raised
by Apollinarians in regard to Christology and Macedonians in regard to the Holy
Spirit. In 381 Theodosius convoked a general council in Constantinople, the
first since Nicaea that would later be recognized as such. That council opened
in May of 381, and closed on July 9. On 30 July of the same year, at the
request of the council fathers, the emperor Theodosius “ratified its decrees by
edict.”34 There
were about 150 eastern members in attendance. From the fifth century on, this
number has often served to designate the council itself. The members came from
the civil dioceses of Egypt, of the East (Syria and Palestine), of Pontus
(Northern and western Asia Minor) of Asia (eastern and Southern Asia Minor) and
of Thrace. Timothy of Alexandria, Dorotheus of Oxyrhincus and Ascolius (or Acholius)
of Thessalonica arrived later, because they had not been invited at the same
time as the others.
34 Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 23.
2.2 The
Bishop of Constantinople and the Presidency of the Council
It is known
that one of the first acts of Theodosius in Constantinople was to depose the Arian
bishop Demophilus. To take his place, Peter, bishop of Alexandria sent a group
of Egyptian bishops to Constantinople with orders to appoint a man known as
Maximus the Cynic as its bishop. Pope Damasus, when informed of this, protested
that this was contrary to the canon of Nicaea that prescribed that bishops
should be elected by the bishops of their own province. Thus, in addition to
the doctrinal disputes, one of the reasons that led Theodosius to convoke the
council was to settle the question about the legitimacy of the election of Maximus.
The council soon deposed him, and in his place chose the theologian, Gregory of
Nazianzus, as bishop of Constantinople, even though they knew that he had been
elected bishop of the little town of Sasima, but had not taken possession of
that see. As president of the council they chose Meletius, the rival for the
episcopate in Antioch whom they favored over Paulinus. Meletius died during the
council, and Gregory took over as president. The council then took up the
question of the successor to Meletius at Antioch. A pact had been made some
years earlier that when one of the rival bishops died, the other should be acknowledged
as the rightful bishop, thus ending the schism. Although Gregory, like most of the
eastern bishops, had favored Meletius over Paulinus, he now proposed that
Paulinus should be confirmed by the council as the bishop of Antioch. The
council rejected his proposal, and elected Flavian to succeed Meletius, thus
prolonging the schism.
At that point
Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, arrived at the council, and declared the appointment
of Gregory as bishop of Constantinople invalid, as a violation of the canon
that forbade the transfer of a bishop from one see to another. Without waiting
for a judgment on this issue, Gregory resigned his see and left the council
after preaching a poignant farewell homily. To take his place Theodosius
proposed an elderly imperial official named Nectarius, who was not even
baptized. Respecting the wishes of the Emperor, the council elected Nectarius
as bishop of Constantinople. He then also served as president for the rest of
the council.
2.3
Ascolius and Damasus
Although
Ascolius was also the personal confidant of Pope Damasus, it was not as a papal
legate that he attended the council. In fact, Ascolius’ name does not appear at
all in the list of signatories of the council.35 At the time of the Council of Constantinople,
Thessalonika, of which Ascolius was bishop, belonged to the West both civilly
and ecclesiastically. In fact, Ascolius was bishop in a territory that no
longer belonged to the emperor Theodosius, since Gratian, the western emperor,
had taken over the provinces of the eastern part of Illyricum in September of
380. Ascolius was invited to the council because he had baptized Theodosius, and
because of their personal relationship.36 De Vries writes, “Ascolios accomplit donc fidèlement,
à Constantinople, la mission que lui avait confiée Damase… Ascolios ne fut, certes,
en aucune manière le lègat de Damase au concile, mais il s’y comporta toutefois
comme son homme de confiance et selon ses directives.”37 Thus, in that
way the bishop of Rome “ne fut pas totalement absent” at the Council of Constantinople
I. Ascolius does not appear among the Fathers who signed the decrees at the council.
De Vries agrees with A.M. Ritter who says “Ascolios a peut-être refuse de
signer en raison des canons 2 et 3, mais il est possible aussi qu’on ne lui ait
pas du tout demandé sa signature puisqu’il venait de l’«Occident».”38 Moreover,
“Damase n’a, d’aucune façon, confirmé le concile.”39 Thus, for many reasons it is possible to assert that
the letter which the synod of Constantinople of 382 sent to Rome about the
council can in no way be understood as seeking its confirmation by the Pope.40
35 See Ibid.
36 See
L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils,106.
37 De Vries, Orient
et Occident, 50-51.
38 Ibid, 51.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid, 51-52.
2.4
Constantinople I: an eastern council
De Vries,
along with many other scholars, writes that Damasus was not invited to attend the
Council of Constantinople because Rome did not belong to Theodosius’ eastern
territory. Moreover, De Vries says that the eastern bishops were “décidé à régler
ses propes affaires par lui-même en toute indipéndance, sans aucune immixtion
de l’Occident, que ce soit de l’évêque de Rome ou d’autres évêques
occidentaux.”41 At the end of their deliberations, the conciliar
Fathers sent to Theodosius, the eastern emperor, a synodical letter. They did
not send that letter to Gratian, emperor of the West, nor to Damasus or other
western bishops. “Ils concevaient leur assemble comme un concile de l’Orient
qui ne concernait pas l’Occident.”42
They
requested from the emperor a written confirmation of the decisions the council
had made, knowing that without his confirmation they would have no effect.
Theodosius issued his confirmation, and gave orders that his subjects “de s’en tenir
à la foi de Nicée et à la divinité du Saint-Esprit.”43
No Acts of
the council have been preserved. The best information about it is in the synodical
letter of 382, which was sent to the synod being held in Rome at that time.
This letter speaks of a “tome” (evidently sent to Rome) that was issued by the
ecumenical synod of 381, in which they had confessed the faith and issued
written condemnations of the heresies that have recently erupted. However, in
this letter there is no mention of canons.44
41 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 46.
42 Ibid.
43 See Ibid,
46-47.
44 See Ibid,
25-30.
2.5
Doctrinal Decisions of the Council
The Council
of Constantinople reaffirmed Nicaea and produced a creed, probably based on a
current baptismal symbol, that in some aspects revised the Nicene Creed - the
profession of faith of 318 Fathers – and added a section on the Holy Spirit. It
is that formula that is still recited today in the Catholic Church, and in
other Christian churches.45 It is known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed or
profession of faith of the 150 Fathers.46 From the same council of 381, I want to stress the
importance of Canon 1 which says:
The
profession of faith of the holy fathers who gathered in Nicaea in Bithynia is
not to be abrogated, but it is to remain in force. Every heresy is to be
anathematised and in particular 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.47 This canon affirms the faith of Nicaea. The Council
of Constantinople sees itself in continuity with Nicaea. Indeed, canon 1
confirms the validity of the decrees passed at Nicaea and the anathematizing of
heretics. The Fathers of Constantinople tried to have more and more unity for
the Church.
The synodical
letter of 382, sent to Damasus and the western bishops meeting in synod at
Rome, expounded in summary form the doctrinal decisions taken by the Fathers at
the council of 381. These decisions followed the lines defined at Nicaea,
namely, “the consubstantiality and coeternity of the three divine persons
against the Sabellians, Anomoeans, Arians and Pneumatomachi, who thought that
the divinity was divided into several natures; and the _________ _ (taking of humanity) of the
Word, against those who supposed that the Word had in no way taken a human
soul.”48 All
those doctrinal decisions were issued by “the ecumenical synod” of 381, in
which the Fathers “had confessed the faith” and “issued written condemnations
of the heresies that have recently erupted.” However, in this letter there is
no mention of canons.49 The eastern bishops did not communicate with the western
brethren about the canons issued at Constantinople in 381, nor did they ask
them for formal recognition of the council as a whole. In that council of 381
“no new symbol was framed, but the Nicene Creed, with some nonessential changes
and important additions respecting the deity of the Holy Ghost against Macedonianism
or Pneumatomachism was adopted.”50
45 See O’Malley,
S.J. A History of the Popes, 37.
46 See the
original Greek, and translated version of Latin and English texts in: Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 24.
47 Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 31.
48 Ibid, 21.
49 See Ibid, 25-30.
50 Schaff writes
that this modification and enlargement of the Nicene Creed seems not to have
originated with the second ecumenical council, but to have been current in
substance about ten years earlier (see note 2 on Shaff’s publication). See P.
Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 639. According to Chadwick at
the Council of Constantinople in 381 the momentous revision of the creed
(assuming the attribution to this council in 451 is correct) combined some of
the terms of the Nicene creed of 325, especially “of one substance” with
phrases more familiar in the Roman baptismal creed. Then, the creed’s third
article set out to deny that the Holy Spirit belongs to the creaturely order.
The Spirit “proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26). The Word of God (Scripture and
Tradition) vindicated the equality of the three hypostases in the divine
Trinity. See Chadwick, East and West, 26.
3. The
Canons of the First Council of Constantinople
3.1 The
Three Disciplinary Canons
Canon 1 is a
doctrinal canon, and has already been treated, and what are given as canons 5, 6,
and 7 were not actually enacted by the council. Therefore, in this section I
will present and explain canons 2, 3, and 4, which are the disciplinary decisions
enacted by the Council and treated in later eastern collections as the canons
of Constantinople I. Canon 2 declares:
Diocesan
bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries, nor are
they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria
is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage
the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the
Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage
only Asia affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in
Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited, bishops are not to go outside
their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If
the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial
synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the
churches of God among barbarian peoples must be administered in accordance with
the custom in force at the time of the fathers.51
Here,
“diocesan bishops” have a very different meaning than they have in modern
Catholic usage. Today a diocese consists of a territory with a major city and
the surrounding area, whose size depends on the density of the population in that
area. There are several such dioceses in an ecclesiastical province. In modern
usage a diocesan bishop has the pastoral care of a local diocese. By the fourth
century, the eastern half of the Roman Empire had been divided into five civil
dioceses, each of which was a large region containing a number of provinces.
The term “diocesan bishops” with which this canon begins, means all the bishops
whose sees are located in a particular civil diocese. It forbids them to
intervene in the affairs of the churches in any other diocese than their own.
Unless invited, they are not to go outside their own diocese to perform an
ordination or any other ecclesiastical business.
De Vries
writes that canon 2 was issued mainly to stop the interventions of the bishop of
Alexandria in the church of Constantinople, especially after the abusive
election of Maximus the Cynic as bishop of Constantinople. Moreover, De Vries
asserts that the principle defined in canon 2 may “très bien être interprété
également contre une immixtion indésirable de lOccident dans les affaires de
l’Orient.”52
Here, I will
postpone the presentation of canon 3, and I will continue in this section by presenting
and explaining canon 4. I will do this since that canon is an application of
canon 2 to the case of Maximus the Cynic.
Canon 4:
Regarding Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which surrounded him in Constantinople:
he never became, nor is he, a bishop; nor are those ordained by him clerics of
any rank whatsoever. Everything that was done both to him and by him is to be
held invalid.53
As I
mentioned above, one of the first acts of the Council of Constantinople was to
depose Maximus the Cynic from the episcopate of Constantinople. His election
and ordination by Egyptian bishops sent by Peter of Alexandria for this purpose
was clearly a violation of the canon of Nicaea that prescribed that bishops
were to be elected by the bishops of the province to which the Church needing a
bishop belonged. The significance of canon 4 is that it decreed that the
ordination of Maximus was not merely illicit but was altogether invalid, with
the result that any ordinations that he performed as bishop of Constantinople
were also invalid.
Canon 3
asserts:
Because it is
new Rome, the bishop of Contantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour
after the bishop of Rome.54
This canon
has very important implications for the relationship of the bishops of Rome and
Constantinople, and for the understanding of the Petrine ministry. I will
present a discussion of three key questions regarding this canon. First, what
was the meaning in that context of the Greek term: “presbeia tes times”
or its Latin translation: “honoris primatum”? In his investigation of
this question Brian Daley concludes that: “…the primacy that these canons ascribe
to the bishops of both Rome and Constantinople among their episcopal colleagues
must be understood in their original context as having clearly practical, even
juridical implications.”55 Therefore, those terms did not mean a mere precedence
in ecclesiastical processions, or other things of that kind, but something far
more serious.
The second
question is the following: What is implied by the reason given: “because it is
the new Rome”? Here, the implication of the phrase: “because it is the new
Rome” is that just as Constantinople has its ecclesiastical status as a result
of its being now the capital city of the Roman Empire, so the ecclesiastical
status of the old Rome is likewise to be attributed to its having been the
original capital city of the Empire.
The third question
is: How is the phrase: “after the bishop of Rome” to be understood? The term
means that the old Rome is still recognized as having the first place among all
the churches, and that the new Rome must be recognized as having the first
place among the churches of the East.
51 Ibid, 31-32.
52 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 58.
53 Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 32.
54 Ibid, 32.
L’Huillier’s translation differs: “As for the bishop of Constantinople, let him
have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, seeing that this city
is the new Rome.” In L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils,
119.
55 Brian Daley,
S.J., “Position and Patronage in the Early Church: The Original Meaning of
‘Primacy of Honor.’” Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993), 531.
3.2
Roman Response to Canon 3
In this
section I will present some points that I think should be treated carefully.
First let us investigate the reasons for thinking that Rome was informed unofficially,
but not officially, about canon 3 and other canons of Constantinople I. There
are two arguments for that thesis. The first is that Ascolius, bishop of
Thessalonika, though from the West, was present at the Council by personal
invitation from Theodosius, and surely was well informed about what the council
had done. It can hardly be doubted that he would have informed Damasus about canon
3 and the other canons. The other argument for holding that Rome was not
informed officially about canon 3 and the other canons is the fact that there is
no mention of canons in the synodical letter of 382. In that letter the eastern
bishops invited the western bishops to consult a “tome” that was issued by the
“ecumenical synod” of 381, in which they “confessed the faith and issued a
written condemnation of the heresies which had recently erupted.” No mention is
made of canons as having been included in that “tome,” nor is there any mention
of canons in the rest of that letter, which speaks of the doctrinal decisions
of the council, and names the bishops who have been ordained for the churches
of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem. Additional evidence is found in a
letter that Leo I (“the Great”), sent to bishop Anatolius of Constantinople on
May 22, 452, in which he declared that “l’Eglise romaine n’avait eu aucune
connaissance de ces canons.” De Vries’ comment on this is: “Cela ne peut vouloir
dire qu’une chose, à savoir qu’ils ne lui avaient pas été transmis
officiellement.”56 The last significant point is that there is good
reason to believe that the synod of Rome in 382 not only was aware of canon 3,
but also responded to it. The reason is that many scholars judge it solidly
probable that the first part of the “Decretum Gelasianum” is actually a document
composed by the Roman synod of 382 as its response to canon 3 of Constantinople
I.57
The following
statements from the Decretum Gelasianum favor the hypothesis that it was
composed as a response to canon 3 of Constantinople I:
The holy
Roman church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained
the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Savior in the Gospel: “Thou art Peter
and upon this rock....”58
This is
clearly the Roman response to what is implied by the phrase: “because it is the
new Rome,” i.e. that just as Constantinople has its ecclesiastical status as a
result of its being now the capital city of the Roman Empire, so the
ecclesiastical status of old Rome is likewise to be attributed to its having
been the original capital city of the Empire.
The first see
of the apostle Peter is therefore the Roman church ….But the second see was
consecrated at Alexandria, in the name of blessed Peter, by his disciple
Mark the
evangelist.... And the third see of the most blessed apostle Peter is Antioch,
which is held in honor because he lived there….59
This is the
Roman response to the claim that because it is the new Rome, that is, because
of the civil status of Constantinople as the imperial city, the church of
Constantinople ranks first among the churches of the East. Here, probably for
the first time, a Petrine apostolic foundation is attributed not only to Rome,
but to Alexandria and Antioch as well, and is given as the reason for the
latter two having been recognized by canon 6 of Nicaea as the principal churches
of the East. The unspoken point is that Constantinople has no apostolic
foundation to justify its being the first church in the East.60
56 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 51.
57 The “Decretum
Gelasianum” is generally understood to be a collection of earlier documents,
complied in the early part of the sixth century. See De Vries, Orient et
Occident, 57.
58 E. Giles,
ed., Documents Illustrating Papal Authority A.D. 96-454 (London:
S.P.C.K., 1952), 131.
59 Ibid.
60 «La théorie
des trios”sieges pétriniens”, don’t naturellement Rome est le premier, remonte
très vraisemblements au synode romain de 382 et constitue précisément la réponse
au canon 3…alors que, selon ladite théorie, seule compte pour le rang
ecclésiastique l’origine pétrinienne du siège» De Vries, Orient et Occident,
51.
3.5
Reception of Constantinople I as an ecumenical council
Another
controversial characteristic of this council is that, in reality, it was not
strictly speaking an ecumenical council. As mentioned above, there were only
eastern bishops present (150), with the intention to treat just eastern
problems; secondly, only in the synodical letter of the synod which met at
Constantinople one year later (382), was the Council of Constantinople given
the title of “ecumenical,” i.e. general and plenary council.61 Gregory of
Nazianzus criticized and censured that council and in subsequent years it was
hardly mentioned. At the time of Pope Felix III (483-492), the Roman Church
recognized only three councils: Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon.62 Constantinople
I acquired a “special status” only when the Council of Chalcedon in its
definition of faith “linked the form of the creed read out at Constantinople
with the Nicene form, as being a completely reliable witness of the authentic
faith. In the East, the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon recognized the authority
of the canons during their sixteenth session.”63 Henry Chadwick observes, “Damasus is not known to
have been invited to send legates to Constantinople for the council and was not
officially represented, though Gregory of Nazianzos vainly pleaded with the council
to risk no breach with Rome and the west.”64 Nevertheless, although no western bishop other than
Ascolius of Thessalonica attended the Council of Constantinople I, and Pope
Damasus did not send official delegates, this council is now indisputably
considered as “ecumenical” by both East and West.65
In the West,
Constantinople I’s dogmatic authority was accepted only at the time of Hormisdas
(514-23) when Rome acknowledged it as the second ecumenical council.66 Then, from
the words of Pope Gregory I (c. 590-604), we can assert that there was another
level of recognition: “I confess that I accept and venerate the four councils
(Nicaea, Constantinople I, Ephesus and Chalcedon) in the same way as I do the
four books of the Gospel….”67 Gregory’s approval was not extended to the canons,
because they were never brought to the knowledge of the apostolic see.68
The Decretum
Gelasianum names four councils whose writings the holy Roman church
receives “for edification.” (Denz. 352)69 The second of these is the “holy synod of Constantinople
in which the heretic Macedonius received his deserved condemnation.” The editor
notes that “without doubt this was not inserted before the end of the schism of
Acacius (a. 519).” The decree does not call these four councils ecumenical, but
it is significant that Constantinople I was named along with Nicaea, Ephesus
and Chalcedon, which were recognized as ecumenical by both East and West.70
It is
important to stress explicitly that, although Constantinople I was not really ecumenical
in its original intention or composition, nor was it initially recognized by
the West, it came to be recognized and received as an ecumenical council
by both the East and the West. The crucial step toward the recognition of
Constantinople I as ecumenical was taken by the Council of Chalcedon in 451,
when it gave the same doctrinal weight to the creed of “the 150 saintly fathers
assembled at Constantinople” as it gave to “the creed of the 318 fathers at
Nicaea.” It then went on to describe the creed of Constantinople I in the
following terms:
This wise and
saving creed, the gift of divine grace, was sufficient for a perfect understanding
and establishment of religion. For its teaching about the Father and the Son
and the holy Spirit is complete, and it sets out the Lord’s becoming human to
those who faithfully accept it.71
When one
recalls that the original creed of Nicaea had as its third article only the
words: “And in the holy Spirit,” one can hardly doubt that the creed of
Constantinople’s “complete teaching about the Father and the Son and the holy
Spirit” accounts for the reception of this creed, rather than the one of
Nicaea, as the liturgical creed of the churches of both East and West. This
surely made a strong contribution to the recognition of Constantinople I as an ecumenical
council.
61 See Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 23.
62 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 52. The North Italian bishops, with Ambrose as their
metropolitain were more interested in the Council of Constantinople than
Damasus was.
63 Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 23.
64 Chadwick, East
and West, 22.
65 “Les décrets
dogmatiques du première Concile de Constantinople furent finalment reconnus
comme règles de foi par l’Eglise universelle….” See De Vries, Orient et
Occident, 52.
66 See Ibid.
67 Gregory I, Reg.
epist. (Register of letters) I 24 (MGH Epist. I 36); see Le Concile 73,
as cited in Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 23. See also De
Vries, Orient et Occident, 52.
68 Leo I, Epist.
(Letters) 56 (106), ACO II IV 61; Gregory I, Reg. epist. (Register
of letters) VII 31 (MGH Epist. I 479), as cited in Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 23.
69 Denzinger, Enchiridion
Symbolorum, 197-198.
70 However,
canon 3 of Constantinople I remained unrecognized in the West until the
thirteen century when “on the foundation of the Latin patriarchate at
Constantinople, 1204, the Lateran Council of 1215 allowed that see the second
rank in Christendom.”See Document 99-Council of Rome, A.D. 382, Post has
omnes. (P.L. 13. 374.), in Giles (Ed.), Documents Illustrating Papal
Authority A.D. 96-454, 130.
71 Ibid, 84.
Chapter 3:
The Petrine ministry and the structures of the Church at the time of Ephesus and
Chalcedon
1.
Context: Developments from Constantinople I to Ephesus
In this
section I will present the complex era between the end of the Council of Constantinople
and the convocation of the Council of Ephesus.
1.1
Chrysostom in Constantinople, conflict between bishop and empress
After the
first council in the “new Rome” in 381, the bishop of Constantinople was Nectarius,
who reigned until 397. The Roman emperor Arcadius (383-408) then appointed as bishop
of Constantinople John of Antioch, who was known later as John Chrysostom or Golden
Mouth. He was forced by the emperor to accept the bishopric, despite the
fact that the bishop of Alexandria, Theophilus (385-412), had presented another
candidate, Arsacius.1 John Chrysostom was a monk and a great preacher, but
he was not prepared to face the very difficult ecclesiastical context of the
imperial city. As metropolitan, he was shocked by the behavior of some bishops.
He forced six bishops of Anatolia out of office for simony, i.e., purchasing
their offices. He chose to do the right thing, but the other bishops of Asia
Minor resented his interference in their dioceses. John also criticized the
empress Eudoxia whom he called Jezabel for he thought she was responsible for
the court’s immoral life. Eudoxia and Theophilus of Alexandria worked together
to get John removed from office. In 403, they sent a group of twenty-nine
Egyptian bishops to Constantinople for a council that deposed John, and ordered
him to go into exile.
The day he
left an earthquake occurred and people interpreted that event as a signal of
divine displeasure over John’s exile. Thus, he returned to the city. That
victory was a short one, for empress Eudoxia had not changed her plan to
eliminate Chrysostom. Faced with the reality of imperial and episcopal power
arrayed against him John appealed to the West for help, writing to Innocent in
Rome and to the bishops of Milan and Aquileia for support.2 Innocent’s representations
were ignored. Finally, Chrysostom was sent into such harsh exile that he died afterward
in 407. John’s death produced a reaction. Pope Innocent I did not accept the sentence
of deposition of Chrysostom by Theophilus and all those involved in that
affair, and “he assumed a breach of communion” with all the great sees of the
East, i.e., Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, but apparently without a
formal act. This schism ended completely in 417.3 In 412 Theophilus died, and his nephew Cyril became
the new bishop of Alexandria (412-444).4
1 See Chadwick,
The Church in Ancient Society, 430-432.
2 See Ibid,
497-498.
3 See Ibid,
498-501.
4 See Ibid, 524-525.
1.2
Rome, the Pelagian Controversy, and the Petrine ministry
In Rome in
410, during Innocent’s episcopate, Alaric sacked the city, creating a political
vacuum in the West which enhanced the political and ecclesiastical significance
of the see of Rome. Alaric tried to conquer North Africa, but he fell ill in Calabria
and died near Cosenza. In that same year, Pelagius, a British monk, and Celestius,
a lawyer and advocate of his teachings, brought to Rome Pelagius’ doctrine
about the ability of men to keep the law of God even without God’s grace. A
synod in Carthage in 411 declared his theology unorthodox, but Pelagius held
fast to his position and the controversy soon involved bishops and synods in Gaul,
Rome, and Carthage. In response to a Gallic synod in 415 that declared Pelagius
orthodox, synods met at Mileve and Carthage in 416 and again condemned both
Pelagius and Celestius. The African bishops transmitted their resolutions to
Rome and asked Pope Innocent to ratify the sentence of condemnation, in
particular for two propositions, i.e., “that prayer for God’s help against sin
is needless, and that baptismal grace is not required for infants to attain eternal
life.”5 In
Rome Innocent without ambiguity judged and excommunicated Pelagius and Celestius
and asserted a strong claim to Roman jurisdiction in doctrinal matters in the
West,6 declaring
that:
Especially as
often as questions of faith are to be ventilated, I think all our brothers and
fellow bishops ought to refer to none but Peter, that is the author of
their name and office, even as your affection has now referred [to us] a matter
which may benefit all churches in common throughout the world.7
Then, the
bishops who attended the synod of Carthage in 417 sent a letter to Zosimus
(417-418), the new bishop of Rome. Initially Zosimus declared Celestius and
Pelagius innocent, but later the African bishops informed him of their will to
confirm the sentence against Pelagius and Celestius issued by Innocent. Zosimus
replied with an agitated letter writing that the tradition of the Fathers
accords to him such a great authority, that: …no one would dare to dispute its
judgment. For canonical antiquity, by the consent of all, has willed such power
to this apostle [Peter] so that the promise of Christ our God, that he should
loose the bound and bind the loosed, is equally given to those who have
obtained, with his assent, the inheritance of his see. For he [Peter] has a care
of all churches, especially for this where he sat, nor does he permit any of
its privileges or decisions to be shaken by any blast, since he established it
on the firm and immovable foundation of his own name, which no one shall rashly
attack, but at his peril.8
About the
same text Zosimus writes that Peter also is “the head of so great authority,
and has confirmed the devotion of all the Fathers who followed him, so that the
Roman church is established by all laws and discipline, whether human or
divine.” Then, the Pope defined his mission saying that “In his place [Peter]
we rule, and we inherit the power of his name; you know this, dearest brothers,
and as priests you ought to know it. Such then being our authority, that no one
can revise our sentence.”9 Finally, after many exchanges of documents with the
African bishops, with their help Zosimus understood how he had been deceived by
the heretics. Thus, in his Tractoria he declared the founders of
Pelagianism guilty of heresy, thereby revising his previous sentence.
5 See Ibid,
451-453.
6 See Ibid,
451-453.
7 Doc. 180,
Giles (Ed.), Documents Illustrating Papal Authority A.D. 96-454, 202.
8 Doc. 189,
Ibid, 212.
9 See Doc. 189,
Ibid, 212.
1.3
Celestine
When Zosimus
died in 418, the election of his successor was contentious. Two parties elected
two different clerics as bishop of Rome: the elderly priest Boniface and the archdeacon
Eulalius. Imperial intervention and a synod composed of African and Gallican bishops
were needed before the schism was resolved in favor of Boniface (418-422).
During his pontificate Boniface worked to halt the spread of Pelagianism and
the divisions it was causing in North Africa. He obtained from emperor
Theodosius II the return of Illyricum to western ecclesiastic jurisdiction. And
he was as “zealous for papal authority as Zosimus had been,” arguing that
judgments made by the Apostolic See were not subject to debate.10
Celestine
(422-432), a cleric from Campania who had served as a deacon in Rome under Zosimus,
was unanimously elected to succeed Boniface. In keeping with his predecessor, Celestine
continued to promote the authority of the Roman bishop. Galla Placidia, mother
of the four-year old emperor Valentinian III, directed the imperial court in
Ravenna, restoring some clerical privileges revoked after Honorius’ death and
ordering the prosecution and exile of heretics not in communion with the bishop
of Rome. Celestine, too, took action against heretics, especially supporters of
Pelagius, but was not able to realize completely his plan to expel them from
Italy. Several instances in which clerics from Africa sought Celestius’ intervention
in appeals from the decisions of synods in Carthage illustrate the close and sometimes
difficult relationship between Rome and North Africa. In one case Augustine of Hippo
dissuaded Celestine from attempting to restore the deposed bishop Antony of
Fussala.
In another
case Celestine twice received and affirmed the appeal of Apiarius, a priest who
was twice excommunicated for immorality. A synod meeting in Carthage in 419
wrote to Celestine to protest his interventionist policy and the attitude of
his legate toward them. They reminded the Pope that their council had the
necessary jurisdiction to handle Apiarius’ appeal of his excommunication.11 In Arles, Potiers, and Aquitaine, however, where
his developing role as super-metropolitan or patriarch was more firmly grounded,
Celestine’s interventions were more successful.12
Later in his
pontificate, Celestine became involved in the theological controversy between
Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, and Nestorius, an Antiochene who was bishop of Constantinople,
that would lead to the council of Ephesus in 431 (see section below). As their dispute
about the title Theotokos and other issues related to the union of humanity
and divinity in Jesus Christ intensified, Cyril sought support from Celestine
in his opposition to Nestorius and Antiochene influence in the see of Constantinople.
Celestine regarded the statements each bishop had sent him as an eastern appeal
to Rome. At a Roman synod in August 430 he condemned Nestorius’ views,
demanding that he recant within ten days or be excommunicated. Nestorius did
not receive this letter, sent via Cyril, until the end of November. Less than
two weeks later Theodosius II called a council for Ephesus in June 431.13 During his
pontificate, Celestine was largely successful in the West in affirming and often
ensuring the oversight of Rome. He was less successful in his relationships
with the churches of Alexandria and Antioch. But, as Kelly observes, “In his
letters and through his legates at the council [Ephesus] Celestine repeatedly asserted,
with an unprecedented insistence, the Pope’s claim, as successor and living
representative of St. Peter, to paternal oversight of the entire Church,
eastern no less than western.”14
10 Chadwick, The
Church in Ancient Society, 459.
11 See
"Celestine I, St" The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Kelly, 3 May
2010; See also Christiane Fraisse-Coué, “Celestine I,” Levillain, The
Papacy, Vol. 1-3, 273.
12 Fraisse-Coué,
“Celestine I,” Levillain, The Papacy,Vol. 1, 273.
13 Chadwick, The
Early Church, 196-197; See "Celestine I, St" The Oxford
Dictionary of Popes, Kelly, 3 May 2010, There are also reference in
L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils, 144-145; De
Vries, Orient et Occident, 63-68.
14 See
"Celestine I, St" The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Kelly, 3 May
2010,
2. The
theological issues leading to Ephesus
At this time,
other theological questions continued to arise, especially Christological questions.
It became clear that a council was needed to discuss and resolve these
problems. In 431, at Ephesus in modern Turkey, a council took place to deal
mainly with the problems of Christology and the title Theotokos.
2.1
Theological issues leading up to Ephesus
After the
precise dogmatic definition of the Trinity at the first two ecumenical
councils, theologians felt the necessity to deepen the understanding of the
mystery of Christ’s person. They were dealing with the question raised by
Apollinaris, whose answer was rejected at Constantinople I, namely how divinity
and humanity are joined in Jesus Christ. Since the second part of the fourth
century the two theological traditions of Antioch and Alexandria had produced
two different argumentations on that question. The parties engaged in that Christological
debate were moved by a long-standing opposition, and it surely did not help their
dialogue that personal and ecclesiastical rivalries mixed with the theological
issues. Antiochene Christology insisted strongly on both the true divinity of
the Word against Arianism, and on the full humanity of Christ against Apollinarianism.
In its exegesis of the Gospels it carefully distinguished between what is
appropriate to the divinity, and therefore can be predicated of the Divine
Word, and what is appropriate to the humanity, and therefore can be predicated
of the man Jesus. The question that this procedure raised was: Is there in Christ
one subject, of whom both what is appropriate to divinity and what is appropriate
to humanity can be predicated?
The answer of
the Alexandrian school to this question was that this one subject is the Divine
Word, who has assumed a human nature into his own Person, so that one can
correctly predicate of the Incarnate Word not only what pertains to his divinity
but also what pertains to his humanity. This means one can say that according
to his divinity, the Word was begotten of the Father before all ages, but that
according to his humanity the Word was born of the Virgin Mary. Therefore it is
correct to say that Mary is the Mother of God.
Nestorius,
the Antiochene Archbishop of Constantinople, did not see how one could predicate
human birth of the Divine Word without denying his true divinity and thus
falling into the Arian heresy. For this reason he forbade his clergy, monks and
laity to call the Virgin Mary “Mother of God,” as they were accustomed to do in
their prayer. Needless to say, this raised a storm of protest.
Therefore,
when word of Nestorius’ preaching and theology reached Alexandria, Cyril,
without actually naming Nestorius, opposed his views in letters he wrote to the
bishops and monks of the region defending the traditional title of Theotokos
for Mary.15 Then, Cyril wrote Nestorius a letter (known as his
Second Letter) in which he asked him for a clarification of his thought and
insisted that he accept both the union according to hypostasis and the
title Theotokos.16 Not receiving support from the emperor Theodosius in
his campaign against Nestorius, Cyril sought an alliance with Celestine, bishop
of Rome. Nestorius had already offended Celestine by receiving several
Pelagians excommunicated by Rome into communion in Constantinople. Although
Nestorius had acknowledged in a letter to Celestine that Theotokos was
an acceptable term, Celestine sided with Cyril, and a Roman synod in 430 demanded
that Nestorius retract his views or be excommunicated.17 Celestine
entrusted Cyril with carrying out the synod’s decision. Nestorius appealed to
the emperor Theodosius II, who summoned a general council to be held at Ephesus
in 431 to decide the issues.
Finally, it
is important to note that, in addition to the different theological traditions
of Alexandria and Antioch and the specific issues that gave rise to this phase
of the Christological controversies, a further factor affected the course of
the controversy and made the conditions for the council’s work very difficult.
That factor was the personal and ecclesiastical rivalry between Cyril and
Nestorius and their sees, Alexandria and the younger imperial see of
Constantinople, in the background of which was always the influence of Rome and
Antioch.
15 Chadwick, Church
in Ancient Society, 528-529.
16 Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 44-50.
17 L’Huillier, The
Church of the Ancient Councils, 144-145.
3. The
Council of Ephesus
3.1
Context and decisions
The council
began on June 22, with about 150 bishops present. Theodosius had appointed an
official of his court to preside at the council, but Cyril assumed the
presidency on the grounds that he was acting on behalf of the bishop of Rome in
this case. Unfortunately he presided in a dictatorial fashion, and began the
proceedings against Nestorius without waiting for the arrival of bishop John of
Antioch and the other bishops of that diocese who would defend Nestorius, or
the arrival of the three delegates sent by the Pope. The judgment against
Nestorius was based on the reading of the letter that Cyril had sent to
Nestorius defending the title Theotokos as orthodox, and the letter of
Nestorius rejecting it as heretical.
The question
put before the council was: which of those two letters is in conformity with
the doctrine of the Nicene Creed? Since the Creed says that the Son of God,
true God from true God, came down from Heaven and was born of the Virgin Mary,
which means that she is rightly called “Mother of God,” the council declared the
letter of Cyril orthodox, and condemned that of Nestorius as heretical.
A few days
later John of Antioch arrived with about 50 bishops, who rejected what the council
had done in their absence, formed their own council, and condemned Cyril. When informed
of this, Theodosius declared the proceedings thus far to be null, but forbade
the bishops to leave Ephesus. When the papal legates arrived in early July the
council resumed under Cyril leadership. The papal letter condemning Nestorius
was read, and the council accepted it, declaring that the bishop of Rome was in
agreement with the decision of the council. The eastern bishops certainly did
not recognize the papal judgment as having decided the case independently of
the council. Ultimately, it was Cyril’s council that was recognized as the
ecumenical council of Ephesus, an outcome that owes much to the support of Theodosius
II and Celestine of Rome. Two years later, under pressure from the emperor,
Cyril and John of Antioch agreed to a common statement of Christological faith,
the Formula of Union, which, however, brought peace to the eastern Church for
only a few years.18
18 Chadwick, The
Church in Ancient Society, 530-537. For the events of the council; that the
council made no formal declaration about Theotokos, 536.
3.2
Canon 7 of Ephesus
Among the
documents of the Cyrilline council, the Fathers of Ephesus issued a synodical
letter about the decisions of the eastern bishops. That letter of the council
advised “the bishops, clergy and people in every city and province” about the
deposition of John of Antioch and the excommunication of those bishops who had
joined with his synod at Ephesus. In this document there are seven paragraphs
which deal with disciplinary actions against the Nestorian party. Later Greek
collections regarded these paragraphs as the canons of the council. Here, I
will present only canon 7, which is significant for the role it will play in the
politics and intrigue leading to the 449 council of Ephesus and ultimately to
Chalcedon.
For
convenience I will use L’Huillier’s text of canon 7 and his translation.19 At a late
session of Cyril’s council that included the Roman legates as well as the bishops
who had been present at the opening session,20 the bishops adopted by acclamation a resolution that
was regarded in later collections as canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus. This canon
states that:
Therefore,
after their reading of these things, the holy council decreed that no one is permitted
to produce, to edit, or to compose another faith than that set out by the holy
Fathers gathered in Nicaea with the Holy Spirit. As for those who would dare to
compose another faith, present it, or propose it to those who might want to be converted
to the knowledge of the truth (whether coming from Hellenism, Judaism, or from
any other heresy) these persons, if they are bishops or clerics, will be set aside;
the bishops separated from the episcopate and the clerics from the clergy; if they
are laymen, they are to be excommunicated. In the same way, if any bishops, clerics
or laymen are found to admit or to teach the doctrines contained in the statement
presented by the priest Charisius on the subject of the incarnation of the only-begotten
Son of God, or, what is more, to admit or to teach the impious and perverse
dogmas of Nestorius which are joined to the statement, let them fall under the
sentence of this holy and ecumenical council: that is, a bishop should be separated
from his episcopate and deposed, a cleric equally deposed from the clergy, and
a layman excommunicated, as was said above.
The
circumstances which occasioned this decision arose from an appeal to the
council by Charisius, a presbyter of Philadelphia, who had been excommunicated
by his bishop, Theophanes. Charisius had objected to the Antiochene Christology
in a baptismal symbol that Theophanes had used as a profession of faith in
reconciling some heretics. The author of the symbol most likely was Theodore of
Mopsuestia.21
At the council Charisius read a creed very similar to Nicaea’s but with
some small differences. In the context of that time the Fathers were worried
about the formulation of many symbols of faith that might contain errors and be
a cause of confusion for believers by taking “unacceptable liberties with the
Nicaean text.”22
It seems
clear, taking into account the circumstances of the redaction of this decree that
the Fathers of Ephesus, following Cyril of Alexandria, found it necessary to
prohibit all individuals (bishops, clerics and laymen) from creating and
spreading “written formulas of faith.” From that assertion, however, we cannot
say that the council wanted to prohibit “competent organs of the Church from
publishing, if it was felt necessary, new symbols and dogmatic decrees; this is
effectively what happened in later history.”23
However,
according to L’Huillier, the main problem with canon 7 is its later misinterpretation,
and use for “questionable polemical purposes where it is taken out of its historical
context and the council Fathers intent.
19 See
L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils, 159-163. See also
Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 65, for the Greek text and
English translation of the councils decrees and disciplinary decisions.
20 See Ibid,
159-160.
21 See Ibid,
160.
22 See Ibid,
161-162.
23 Ibid, 163.
4. From
Ephesus to Chalcedon
4.1
Context
After the
Alexandrian victory at Ephesus and the deposition of Nestorius, there was continued
controversy and animosity between Alexandria and Antioch. In 433 Theodosius II insisted
that the two parties reach agreement on a Formula of Union which was
drafted by Theodoret, and it represented a real effort at reconciling the two
points of view. The Formula is an important step toward the Chalcedonian Definition
which would speak of “the unconfused union of two natures.”24 The Formula
of Union affirms the confession of: Our Lord Jesus Christ, the unique Son
of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and body; begotten of
the Father before [the] ages according to the Godhead, the same in the last
days for us and for our salvation [born] of Mary the Virgin according to the
manhood: the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead, and consubstantial
with us in manhood, for a union of two natures took place; therefore we confess
one Christ, one Son, one Lord.25
Here the Formula
of Union draws on the Antiochene Christology in asserting that Christ is perfect
God and perfect man, “of one substance with us in his humanity.”26 This
significant document for a while eliminated the conflict between the parties
for it was “considered as an official dogmatic definition of the Church and
thus the final act of the third ecumenical council.”27 Cyril’s
acceptance of the Formula’s understanding of the two natures dismayed his followers
and weakened his position with them. But, the Formula also affirmed Mary as Theotokos:
According to
this understanding of the unconfused union we confess the holy Virgin to be Theotokos,
because God the Word was made flesh and lived as man, and from the very
conception united to Himself the temple taken from her.28
Later in the
letter in which he quotes the Formula of Union, Cyril addresses John of Antioch
saying: “For you must surely clearly understand that almost all our fight for
the faith was connected with our declaring that the holy Virgin is Theotokos.”29 Here,
Alexandria won its victory, while on this point Antioch distanced itself
somewhat from Nestorius and immediately received that definition.
In some ways
the Formula recognized that the Nicene Creed still required further clarifications,
but that document “made no claim to replace Nicaea.”30 Agreement on
the Formula of Union was not without consequences. From both parts there
were critics who attacked Theodoret and Cyril, saying that they were traitors.
Cyril defended himself by attacking Theodore of Mopsuestia’s memory. But
Theodore’s defenders answered “by citing letters in which Cyril had apparently
deplored the assault on Theodore’s memory, arguing that the dead should be left
in peace.”31 Cyril
of Alexandria died in 444.
24 See Edward R.
Hardy, and Cyril Richardson, Ed., Christology of the Later Fathers (Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1954), 355.
25 Ibid, 356.
26 See Chadwick,
East and West, 41.
27 L’Huillier, The
Church of the Ancient Councils, 152.
28 Hardy and
Richardson, Eds., Christology of the Later Fathers, 356.
29 Ibid, 357.
30 See David
Gwynn, “The Council of Chalcedon and the Definition of Christian Tradition,”
Richard Price and Mary Whitby, Eds., Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils
400-700 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009), 13.
31 Richard
Price, “The Second Council of Constantinople (553) and the Malleable Past,”
Ibid, 124-125.
4.2 Leo
the Great: the Petrine ministry and relations with other bishops
Leo I, was
the bishop of Rome from 440-461. He lived through the long historical period
that we are studying, and looking at him, we will be more able to understand
the Church history of that time. Leo had been a deacon during Celestine’s
pontificate. As bishop of Rome (440-462) he understood and “carried Damasus’s
claims for the papacy to a new level.”32 It is in this period that those claims of the bishop
of Rome reached their zenith.33 Leo was regarded as a great preacher and in his
homilies and catechesis “hammered home Peter’s mystical presence in Rome,” and
clearly presented himself as a successor of Peter’s authority.34
Blessed
Peter… has not given up the helm of the Church which he received… Therefore if
anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is obtained
from God’s mercy by daily petitions, it is due to his works and merits whose
power lives in his see and whose authority prevails there.” In the successors of
Peter he is being honored “in whom the concern that all shepherds have for the care
of the sheep entrusted to them continues and whose dignity sustains no loss even
in the case of an unworthy heir.35 Wilhelm De Vries sees Leo as providing “a more
precise juridical definition for the idea of succession.” But, not all scholars
agree that Leo operates with a “juristic theology.”36 In another text Leo writes:
Peter is “not only the president of this see, but also the primate of all the
bishops. Therefore… believe that he is speaking to you in whose stead we act”
(MPL, 54, 146-147). The most blessed Peter… does not cease to preside over his
see and obtains an abiding partnership with the eternal Priest.” The stability
that Peter received from Christ “he conveyed also to his successors.” “All
parts of the Church are ruled by his care and enriched by his help.”37
As bishop of
Rome, Leo acted with his spiritual authority and “availed himself of the enforcement
power of the imperial government, to which he attributed a concern for the true
religion equal to his own.”38 In his relations with the bishops Leo claimed as his
task the issues of faith and communion, for which above all, he believed the
bishop of Rome has jurisdiction in the whole Church.39 His
understanding of the Roman primacy is already well developed. He claims rights
over the whole Church, but is not an autocrat, because the most important
decisions were taken in agreement with the Roman synod. He usually asked advice
from the bishops, priests, and deacons,40 thus in the exercise of his doctrinal authority, he
did not proceed arbitrarily, but in common agreement with his brothers in the
episcopacy, and with all the Church. He wanted to teach only what the Church believes,
and what all Catholics believe.41 In his relations with the bishop of Antioch, Leo gave
him precise indications and recommendations. He made recommendations also to
the patriarch of Alexandria. Because that church was founded by St. Mark,
disciple of Peter, Leo concluded that it has a special relationship with the
church of Rome and consequently, ought to model itself on Rome’s image.42 It seems that
a concept that would belong to the second millennium is already present here in
germ. With Leo as bishop of Rome, the correlation between the bishop of that church
and the image of Peter, which had already been proposed by Damasus I and others
before Leo, now became fully explicit.43 Leo believed that “Peter continues his task in the bishop
of Rome.” Therefore, Rome’s predominance over the other churches is to be
explained “from Peter’s presence in his successors,” i.e., the bishops who
occupy the Chair of Peter.44 Leo exercised his pastoral care writing letters to
the bishops of all the West, i.e. Africa, Gaul, Spain, and Italy. He did so
especially by “admonishing them, settling disputes, and letting them know he
expected them to follow Roman customs.”45 When Hilary the bishop of Arles “began to behave as
if his see were a patriarchate independent of Rome,” Leo asked for and obtained
a rescript from emperor Valentinian III confirming that he had jurisdiction
over all the western provinces. That case ended with Leo’s decision to split
Hilary’s bishopric into the two sees, of Arles, and Vienne, thus decreasing
Hilary’s power and increasing Leo’s.46
32 O’Malley,
S.J. A History of the Popes,38.
33 See Piepkorn,
“The Roman Primacy in the Patristic Era,” Empie and Murphy, eds., Papal Primacy
and the Universal Church, 92.
34 O’Malley,
S.J., A History of the Popes, 38.
35 Piepkorn,
“The Roman Primacy in the Patristic Era,” Empie and Murphy, eds., Papal
Primacy and the Universal Church, 92.
36 Ibid, 236,
note 22.
37 Ibid, 92.
38 See Ibid.
39 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 133.
40 See Ibid,
135.
41 See Ibid,
136.
42 See Ibid,
134-135.
43 See “Common
Statement”: In Paul C. Empie and Austin T. Murphy , eds., Papal Primacy and
the Universal Church, 17.
44 Thus,
according a common understanding among Lutherans and Catholics, we can define
the Petrine function of the bishop of Rome as “nothing less than the care for
all the churches. It imposes upon other bishops the duty to obey his authority
and apply his decisions. Thus, western theological affirmations of papal
primacy found an early expression in the teaching of Leo I.” See Ibid.
45 O’Malley,
S.J. A History of the Popes, 38.
46 Ibid.
4.3
Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Leo’s Tome
After Cyril’s
death, the bishop of Alexandria was Dioscorus (444-451), a leader among those
who resented Cyril’s concession. Dioscorus formed an alliance with Eutyches (ca.
358-454), a monk of Constantinople who was the superior of a large monastery,
and had a great reputation as a spiritual advisor.47 Eutyches detested Theodoret’s “two natures”
Christology,48 and admired the theology of Cyril of Alexandria. In contrast to
Cyril, Eutyches maintained that when the Word became flesh the divine and human
natures were merged into one nature. Eutyches used the term “one phýsis,”
a word that Greek theologians used often for “nature,” but Cyril had used phýsis
to mean “person.” Eutyches stressed Christ’s divinity, preaching that the
divine nature swallowed up the human after the incarnation: “one nature, that
God made man, became flesh,”49 and argued that “this teaching was in accordance with
the faith of Nicaea confirmed at Ephesus and with the faith of the Fathers,
especially Athanasius and Cyril.”50
By 447,
Eutyches’ thought became well known, and other theologians started to write against
him. They accused him of eliminating the divine-human distinction
(Apollinarianism). Eutyches accused his opponents of denying the divine-human union
in Christ (Nestorianism). At that time in Constantinople the bishop of the city
was Flavian (446-449). He understood the complex reality there and in 448
convoked a local synod which condemned Eutyches’ teachings. From that moment
Dioscorus’ defense of Eutyches began because Dioscorus claimed that Eutyches’
enemies were also Cyril’s enemies. Both Dioscorus and Eutyches conspired to
destroy Flavian. Eutyches protested to Theodosius II of Flavian’s treatment against
him, and the emperor supported him.51 Flavian of Constantinople sought support from Rome,
and Leo condemned the heresy of Eutyches. In response to Flavian’s appeal and Theodosius’
announcement of a new council to meet in Ephesus in 449, Leo sent to Flavian a formal
letter which became known as the Tomus ad Flavianum or Leo’s Tome,
a lengthy exposition of the faith as taught in the West. Through the letter he
asserted a claim to a “teaching authority even over the churches of the East”
and, at the same time brought the bishops of Gaul into line by demanding their
consent to it as well.52
Initially Leo
had been cool toward Flavian and favorable toward Eutyches, but when he read
the documents Flavian had sent him, he soon realized that if Eutyches could not
affirm the real humanity of Christ as having redemptive value, he was not
orthodox:
When you
cross-examined Eutyches and he replied, “I confess that our Lord was of two
natures before the union, but I confess one nature after the union,” I am
amazed that such an absurd and corrupt declaration of faith was not very
severely censured by the judges; and that an extremely foolish statement was
disregarded, as if nothing whatever offensive had been heard. It is just as
wicked to say that the only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the
incarnation as it is abominable to claim that there was a single nature in him
after the Word was made flesh.53
As Chadwick
notes, in the Tomus ad Flavianum “Leo’s aversion to Eutyches’ language
could not have been concealed.”54 In fact, he described Eutyches as “very rash and
extremely ignorant,” someone “in whom knowledge of the truth is blocked by a
kind of dimness.”55
In refutation
of Eutyches and the eastern bishops who had accepted his views, Leo instructs
the readers of his Tome about the two-natures Christology of the West
and the scriptural texts that support it. Prominent among those texts was the
hymn in Philippians 2.
… So the one
who retained the form of God when he made humanity, was made man in the form of
a servant. Each nature kept its proper character without loss; and just as the
form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant
does not detract from the form of God….56
Leo defends
the integrity of each nature while also holding their union in one person. So
the proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a
single person…. So it is on account of this oneness of the person, which must
be understood in both natures, that we both read that the son of man came down
from heaven, when the Son of God took flesh from the virgin from whom he was
born, and again that the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried,
since he suffered these things not in the divinity itself whereby the Only-begotten
is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of the
human nature.57
To his dismay
Leo’s Tome was not read at the 449 council, but two years later it was
read and approved at the council of Chalcedon and contributed to the council’s
Definition of Faith.
47 See Joseph F.
Kelly, The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History. Collegeville:
Liturgical Press, 2009, 42.
48 See Chadwick,
East and West, 41.
49 See Kelly,
The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, 42.
50 Gwynn, “The
Council of Chalcedon and the Definition of Christian Tradition,” Price and
Whitby, Eds., Chalcedon in Context, 13.
51 See Kelly,
The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, 42.
52 See Chadwick,
The Church in Ancient Society, 560.
53 Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 81-82.
54 See Chadwick,
The Church in Ancient Society, 560.
55 Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 77.
56 Ibid, 77-80.
57 Ibid, 77-79.
4.4
“The robber council”
In response
to Eutyches’ appeal against his condemnation by the synod of Constantinople,
Theodosius II called a council to be held at Ephesus in 449, at which the ally of
Eutyches, Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, presided. Dioscorus had brought with
him a large number of bishops from Egypt and Palestine, who formed the majority
at the council. Pope Leo did not attend, but he sent his Tome, to the
council through his legates. The reading of Leo’s letter was twice refused by
Dioscorus and the council. Instead, Eutyches arrived to give his profession of
faith. Then, the Fathers read the decrees of the local synod which condemned
Eutyches, but “the bishops denounced these and overwhelmingly (111 to 19) voted
to rehabilitate Eutyches.”58 Moreover Flavian of Constantinople was deposed for violating
canon 7 of Ephesus (431) which prohibited adding to the Nicene Creed because he
had quoted from Leo’s Tome the standards he used to judge and condemn
Eutyches’ theology at the home synod in 448. After Flavian was deposed, the monophysite
doctrine of Eutyches was approved. According to the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon,
“Flavian on hearing the sentence against him immediately disclaimed the
authority of the council, in which he was backed up by one of the papal
legates.”59 Rapidly,
he sent an appeal to the bishop of Rome, and three days after the sentence he
died from ill treatment, as a martyr of faith. Other bishops were also unjustly
deposed, namely the leading bishops Domnus of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus.
Theodoret appealed to the “right and just tribunal” of the bishop of Rome,
saying he was willing to obey whatever verdict Leo would issue. Furthermore, in
a letter Theodoret sent to Renatus the presbyter, he presented “many reasons
for the hegemony of Rome, chiefly the fact that it has remained free from all
heretical stench and that no one holding false opinions has ever sat upon its
[episcopal] throne, but it has kept the grace of the apostles undefiled.”60 But the most
explicit appeal to the bishop of Rome and to his jurisdiction was that of Eusebius,
bishop of Dorylaeum, for he asked Leo to restore him to his office.61
When Leo
learned about the council’s actions from his legates, he condemned the council
as a latrocinium, or “robber council,” describing it also as “no court
of justice but a gang of thieves.” Furthermore, at once he dispatched letters
of protest to the emperor Theodosius II,62 who “calmly assured the westerners that all was
fine,”63 and
that “peace reigned and pure truth was supreme.”64 But, in July of 450 things changed suddenly. Theodosius
II had a fatal accident in which he fell from his horse and a few days later
died from his injuries. After Theodosius’ death the only person who could
succeed to the throne was his sister Pulcheria. She married Marcian, an
ex-general, and they ruled as emperor and empress. Pulcheria was a supporter of
Flavian and established an alliance with Pope Leo. Anatolius was elected bishop
of Constantinople. The emperor convoked a council at Chalcedon in 451.
58 Kelly, The Ecumenical
Councils of the Catholic Church, 43.
59 See Doc. 254,
Giles, Ed., Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, 300.
60 As cited in
Piepkorn, “The Roman Primacy in the Patristic Era,” Empie and Murphy, eds., Papal
Primacy
and the Universal Church, 94.
61 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 138.
62 Ibid, 288.
63 Kelly, The Ecumenical
Councils of the Catholic Church, 43.
64 Freeman, A
New History of Early Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009),
303.
5. The
Council of Chalcedon
5.1 The
preparation
Now, the
problem was how to deal with the “robber” council of Ephesus of 449. Could it
just to be ignored, rejected or annulled as heretical? Was it necessary to call
another council that would overturn it? We know that this is what happened in
regard to the Arian councils after Nicaea, which were overturned by
Constantinople of 381. Then, who has the authority to convoke the council and
where should it be held? Should there be Roman representation? It was clear
that Pulcheria was among those who were opposed to the council of 449 and thought
that this council should be repealed. But, according to the imperial church’s understanding
at that time, this could be done only with another council.65 In 451 Pulcheria
and Marcian decided to have a new council at Nicaea, but before it opened it
was moved to Chalcedon, close to the capital, just across the Bosphorus in the
martyr church of St Euphemia. Leo was determined not to repeat what happened at
Ephesus in 449, and insistently asked the imperial couple to held a council in
the West. They refused, asserting that this was an eastern affair. Leo sent his
legates to Chalcedon, three clergy from Italy, headed by bishop Paschasinus of
Lilybaeum (Marsala) in Sicily. Leo presumed that the senior papal legate at
Chalcedon would chair the council; in fact, he chaired only the third session. The
imperial commissioners presided over the council, and their presence and
mediation were crucial for its success.66 With those solutions, Dioscorus’ control of the council
was no longer a possible problem.
The fourth
great and ecumenical council began on 8 October and the Fathers worked there
for almost one month. They met under “the firm control of Pulcheria and
Anatolius of Constantinople.”67 A significant number of court dignitaries were
present to guarantee imperial influence, and there were probably about 600
bishops present.68 The papal representatives in the East had limited
power. They demanded that the council’s Fathers exclude Dioscorus from the
synodical participation, but the imperial court proposed a formal trial.
Dioscorus listened to the reading of the acts of the robber council and the
synod of Constantinople. An increasing number of Fathers began to desert
Dioscorus, and at a certain point, the Egyptian bishops did also. There was a
declaration from the imperial commissioners who demanded that “the Alexandrian
to be condemned, pending imperial approval of the sentence.”69 The bishops
met two days later and ordered the reading of the decrees of the Councils of
Nicaea and Constantinople I. For the council of 381 this was the initial formal
recognition of its ecumenicity. The Fathers also ordered the reading of other documents
including the Formula of Union (433) and the Tomus ad Flavianum.
65 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 104.
66 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 110-111. See also R. Price and M. Whitby, eds., Chalcedon
in Context, 73. I agree with those who say that Paschasinus led just the
third session of the council. L’Huillier is the only one who writes that
Pashasinus presided at the second session of the council. See L’Huillier, The
Church of the Ancient Councils, 188. There does not seem to be sufficient
historical evidence to affirm, as Meyendorff and O’Malley do, that the
Sicilian bishop presided over the whole council. But, I found significant Meyendorff’s
distinction, i.e., he distinguishes between the ecclesiastical president and
the lay imperial commissioners who led the council. See John Meyendorff,
Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450-680 A.D. (Crestwood,
New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1989), 168. See also O’Malley, S.J. A
History of the Popes, 38. Finally, It seems not as precise as H. Chadwick
in his presentation of that case for he writes that “no bishop was to preside
at most of the sessions. That task was entrusted by Marcian and Pulcheria to a
high-powered lay body” (officials of the empire). See Chadwick, The Church
in Ancient Society, 571.
67 Chadwick, The
Early Church, 203.
68 It is
difficult to present the correct number of participants.
69 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 110-111.
5.3
Creeds
At the
beginning of the synod’s work, one of the questions for the council Fathers to resolve
was whether they needed to produce a new confession of faith. On 10 October the
presiding officials asked that each bishop sign a written statement of belief,
since they knew that the emperor accepted the Nicene creed, the creed of Constantinople
I, and the traditional teachings of eminent Fathers, such as Athanasius, Cyril,
Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory (Nazianzen), and Leo, who was added to that
list.70 Marcian
and Pulcheria wanted a fresh statement of faith. But the problem was that
according to the Council of Ephesus, canon 7, it was not permitted to have any
other symbol of faith than the Nicene Creed. Thus, the bishops at Chalcedon
fully agreed that it was necessary to follow the example of the great Fathers
who wanted to adhere to the Nicene creed and no more. They knew also that
“pagans laughed at the Church for a continual succession of synods creating new
creeds.”71 Eventually,
they figured out the best way to solve the question concerning the creed of
Constantinople I. The only possible and reasonable way to seriously continue
their work according to the spirit of Nicaea was to recognize the creed associated
with the 150 Fathers of Constantinople of 381 as a legitimate and necessary
supplement to the creed of Nicaea. They did so, especially acknowledging that
symbol of faith as “consonant” with the Nicene Formula. The Alexandrians had
some problems in receiving the creed approved at Constantinople, but the bishops
at Chalcedon were determined to reach agreement on the issues before them.
Their work followed a precise order: first, the metropolitan of Nicomedia read
the Nicene creed with its anathema dated 19 June 325; second, the lay presidents
asked the archdeacon of Constantinople to read the creed of the 150 Fathers (of
381), Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius, and the letter of John of Antioch
with the Formula of Union; third, the authoritative secretary of the imperial
consistory read a Greek version of Leo’s Tome. After listening to the above
creeds, letters, and authors, the bishops expressed in many ways their
veneration toward them. However, the majority of the bishops were against
drawing up a new statement of faith on the Christological question, arguing
that this was forbidden by canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus. Because the
emperor insisted that the council must produce a statement of faith about the
natures in Christ in order to settle the question for the peace of the Church, the
council agreed to have such a statement drawn up. The session ended with the
instructions of the lay presidents to Anatolius. They asked him to select a committee
and to return in five days with a statement of faith.72
70 See Chadwick,
The Church in Ancient Society, 573-574.
71 See Ibid,
574, quoting Evagrius.
72 See Ibid,
573-574.
5.2
Definition of Chalcedon
The work that
was given to the “doctrinal” committee was essential for the next step in the
council’s work. An important question to raise is why the council wrote a
“definition” and how it avoided violating canon 7 of Ephesus (431). The Council
of Chalcedon had fifteen sessions, and the famous statement now known as the
Chalcedonian Definition was produced during the fifth and sixth sessions which
discussed the central doctrinal question regarding Christology. A committee of
bishops was directed to draft a new statement of faith that included Leo’s
two-natures formula, which was not very different from the Antiochene insistence
on two natures. When the committee accomplished their work with a long declaration
of faith, they were “greeted with shouts of approval on 25 October” by the full
assembly. The key statement of that text is: …We all with one voice teach…one
and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, acknowledged in two natures [en
duo physesin] which undergo no confusion [asunkutos], no
change [atreptos], no division [adiairetos], no
separation [achoristos].73
In this
passage we can recognize Leo’s contribution especially in the words: “in two natures.”74 Also included
is a statement from Leo’s Tome regarding one person and one hypostasis;
key passages from the Forrmula of Union regarding the completeness of the divinity
and humanity in Jesus Christ, homoousios with God and with us
respectively; and a statement on the distinctiveness of each nature, taken from
Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius.75
73 Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 86. I have inserted the bracketed phrases.
74 Ibid, 81-82
75 For further
studies see Aloys Grillmeyer, S.J., Christ in Christian Tradition,Volume
One, From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451). Translated by John
Bowden (London: Mowbrays, 1975).543-550.
5.4
Leo’s Tome
Leo’s letter
was found to be “in line with established orthodoxy” and was received with cordial
approval.76 That
Tome in some ways helped the “corrective council”77 to systematically
reverse most of the acts of the latrocinium of 449. After his deposition
(not on doctrinal questions) Dioscorus went into exile to die in 454, and
Nestorius was again condemned as a heretic. The council condemned Dioscorus for
having excommunicated the Pope, to whom “le Saveur a confié la garde de la
vigne.”78 The
Fathers recognized that:
Le siege
épiscopal de Rome est d’origine apostolique et demandent (ayant en vue le canon
28) qu’un rayon de son apostolicité brille sur le siege de Constantinople, car de
cette manière, la seconde Rome, Constantinople, ne ferait qu’une avec la première
puisqu’elle participerait de la meme apostolicité.79
To what
extent did the council take into account the Tome ad Flavianus and the
primacy of the Pope? The Fathers said that Peter spoke through Leo, that is,
through his letter. Here, we can understand that Leo’s doctrine agrees with
Peter’s confession of faith. The emperor’s commissioners asked the Fathers if
there was a perfect agreement between the faith of Nicaea-Constantinople and
Leo’s letter. Thus, the Tomus ad Flavianum was officially submitted for
discussion; it was not accepted a priori.80 De Vries writes that the letter was approved by the
Fathers, but in a context in which “toute cette affaire prouve qu’un nombre important
d’évêques ne reçut le Tome de Léon que sous l’effet d’une forte pression
(empereur).”81 Hence, the authority of Leo’s letter found its strength and
reception in the council, but the eastern bishops did not consider Leo’s
verdict as definitive, because they took a decision in full freedom, without
being bound by the judgement of the bishop of Rome.
76 Chadwick, The
Early Church, 203.
77 Ibid, 42.
78 De Vries, Orient
et Occident, 140.
79 Ibid, 140.
80 Ibid, 141.
81 Ibid, 145.
5.5
Canons of Chalcedon
Here I will
present several canons of the Council of Chalcedon. The council issued 27 disciplinary
canons, and what we call canon 28 is a resolution that the council approved at
the 16th session. That canon, however, was not accepted by the Roman
representatives because they knew it would not be accepted at Rome, since it
implied that the primacy of Rome was due to its being the imperial city rather
than to the fact its bishop was the successor of Peter. Many of the canons are
about matters of governance and church order, among which canon 1 is about
observing all the canons of previous synods; they are still authoritative. It
states that:
We have
deemed it right that the canons hitherto issued by the saintly Fathers at each
and every synod should remain in force.82
Canons 9, 12,
and 19 are significant in regard to disputes between clerics, and their bishop,
or between a bishop and the metropolitan (9);83 the appointment of metropolitan bishops, the geographical
integrity of dioceses, not permitting metropolitans to be appointed by imperial
decrees, and not dividing dioceses (12);84 and twice-yearly provincial synods (19.)85
82 Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 87.
83 Ibid, 91.
84 Ibid, 93.
85 Ibid, 96.
5.6
Canon 28 of Chalcedon
This canon
was definitively adopted on November 1, at the 16th session near the end of the
council.86 It
is not clear how many Fathers were present for the discussion and approval of
that canon, as many seem already to have returned home. The meeting was tense
and began with a protest from the Roman legates about a session the night
before at which neither they nor the imperial commissioners were present.
However, the Roman representatives had declined to participate in the
deliberations because they said they had not received instructions on the
matter. The bishops discussed the problem. According to L’Huillier, the session
had not been furtive.87 The council then adopted the text that had been
presented that evening. Their resolution, with its famous reference to canon 3
of Constantinople regarding the new Rome, became known as canon 28 of
Chalcedon. Its full text follows.
Following in
every way the decrees of the holy Fathers and recognizing the canon which has
recently been read out – the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled
in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial
Constantinople, new Rome88 – we issue
the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church
of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The Fathers rightly accorded prerogatives
to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same
purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most
holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the
imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome,
should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second
place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace,
but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among
non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy
church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses
along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as
has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans89 of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said,
are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been
reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.90
Different
from the other canons, here “the language is polished and the terminology
precise.” L’Huillier analyzes the two parts of the canon. The first part is a
preamble that expresses the canonical situation of the new Rome, and “it
constitutes a whole in itself, in that it seems to be an interpretation and
restatement of canon 3 of the council of Constantinople of 381.”91 The second
part has three points: the supermetropolitan rights which belong to the see of
new Rome in regard to the dioceses of Pontus, Thrace and Asia; the right of the
archbishop of Constantinople to ordain bishops among the barbarians nations;
and a clarification about the “promotion of the bishops and metropolitans of
the three dioceses.”92
86 See
L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils, 285. In the seventeenth
session in the Acta Graeca and the sixteenth in the Versio a Rustico
edita.
87 See Ibid,
285. See also Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society, 585.
88 Who
assembled… new Rome omitted in variant reading in CCO.
89 Along with…
metropolitans omitted in variant reading in CCO
90 See Tanner, Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils, 100.
91 See
L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils, 270.
92 See Ibid. For
further studies on that second part of the canon I suggest to refer to the same
study of Peter L’Huillier (278-282).
5.7
Interpretation of Canon 28
Only 185 of
the bishops at the council signed the resolution that became canon 28, and many
of these signatures were made by proxy.93 It is not easy to know what understanding the Fathers
had of canon 28. It is sure that many bishops did not sign or were absent, but
others signed because, according to L’Huillier, “unquestionably, they found
nothing in the motion that could undermine the authority or dignity of the see
of Rome.”94 L’Huillier
argues from an orthodox perspective that this canon has the purpose of defining
the primatial prerogatives of the see of Constantinople, not those of the see
of old Rome, and therefore that the Fathers at Chalcedon had no intention of
minimizing the importance of the apostolicity of Rome.95 L’Huillier
understands the rationale behind canon 28 to be securing the rights of the see
of Constantinople against the see of Alexandria, which had tried in many ways
to undermine the stability of the new Rome and the position of its bishops since
the inception of the see. Nevertheless, L’Huillier acknowledges that in later
centuries Constantinople had ambitious tendencies, believing that the city had
the first place before the old Rome, because Constantinople “is the only
capital.”96 It
is precisely this kind of political rationale and its consequences that Rome
objected to in the reiteration and affirmation of canon 3 of Constantinople in
Chalcedon’s canon 28.
The
proceedings at Chalcedon demonstrated the ambivalence of the eastern bishops toward
Rome’s authority and claims to primacy. Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, expressed
to Leo the submission of the church of Constantinople to the church of Rome:
“le siege épiscopal de Constantinople a celui de Rome pour père”.97 Furthermore,
Anatolius asked the Pope to confirm the council. The Council of Chalcedon
recognized that “Peter spoke through Leo.” If we want to be more exact,
however, we have to assert that the Fathers at Chalcedon recognized Leo’s
doctrine to conform to the faith of Peter. The council’s praise of Leo
recognized the accordance of Leo’s letter with the doctrine of the Apostles.
But, we have to remember that during the Council of Ephesus of 449, the Fathers
spoke of Dioscorus saying: “C’est là la voix de l’Esprit-Saint!... Par toi
revivent les Pères!” Or, there is the case of the emperor’s commissioners:
“Dieu a parlé par votre bouche!” Or to the emperor: “Docteur de la foi!”98 As noted
above, the council approved Leo’s Tome only after discussing it.99 Therefore,
Leo’s Tome acquired authority because was received by the council.100
93 See Ibid,
285.
94 See Ibid,
286.
95 See Ibid, 282
96 See Ibid,
282-283.
97 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 139.
98 Ibid, 141
99 See p. 73
above on the council of Ephesus, and De Vries, Orient et Occident,
140-141.
100 See Ibid,
144.
5.8
Roman response to Canon 28 and the Council
At Chalcedon
the papal legates objected to canon 28, and Pope Leo I rejected it, because it
attributed the prerogatives of Rome to its being the imperial capital, rather
than to its bishop being the successor of Peter. Further reasons for rejecting
it were that canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea had put Alexandria in the first
place among eastern churches and that the church of Constantinople had no
apostolic foundation. But eventually Rome had to deal with Constantinople as the
leading church in the East.
There are
several issues in regard to canon 28. What were Rome’s arguments against canon 28?101 Did Leo and
the Roman legates already know of canon 3 of Constantinople, which was
reiterated and affirmed in canon 28 of Chalcedon? How did the legates (and Leo)
deal with the precedence of the sees during the council? Despite their
objections, canon 28 does not seem to have been a surprise to the Roman legates
or to Leo. The legates had refused to attend the night session at which canon
28 was first discussed, claiming they had no instructions on that matter. But
the next day they read from a document in which Leo had urged them (with
Alexandria or perhaps Constantinople in mind):
Do not allow
the constitution promulgated by the holy fathers to be violated by any rash
move, reserving in every way the dignity of our person which you represent; and
if perhaps any, relying on the splendor of their cities, attempt any
usurpation, repel this with the determination which this merits.102
Eusebius of
Doryleaeum, who had been a refugee in Rome shortly before Easter 451, reported that
he was present when envoys arrived from Constantinople, evidently to discuss
the matter ahead of time, and he himself had quoted canon 3 of Constantinople
to Leo, who raised no objection to it.103 This may account for the surprise with which
Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, greeted the legates’ rejection of the
proposed reaffirmation of canon 3 in Chalcedon’s canon 28.
Another
reason for Anatolius’ surprise may have been that the legates had been deferential
to him throughout the council, regularly granting him precedence after themselves
in the proceedings. When the dogmatic definition was signed, the legates signed
first, followed by Anatolius. Concern for the precedence of the patriarchal
sees was voiced by many of the Fathers, who were indignant that at the “robber
council” of Ephesus in 449, Dioscorus had treated Flavian as the least of the
patriarchs before the council deposed him.104
The Roman
delegation made a final attempt to defeat the canon, declaring that the apostolic
see must not be humiliated in their presence, and for this reason they asked to
abrogate everything that was done during their absence
…to the
detriment of the canons and the rules; if it is not abrogated, let our protest (contradictio)
be inserted into the Acts so that we may know what we must carry to the knowledge
of the apostolic man, the Pope of the universal Church, so he can make a
judgment on the undermining of his see and on the vilolations of the canons.105
Nevertheless,
the imperial commissioners accepted a motion to approve the canon and then officially
closed the session. In a clarification they affirmed that to “the primacy of
the see of Old Rome was given its proper recognition and value,”106 On this point
De Vries writes that the foundation of the succession of the primacy of Peter
is of divine law and is not put into question by canon 28 even though it
follows the political principle which recognizes the dignity of the episcopal
sees as dependant on the civil rank of the city.107 The council had clearly ignored the arguments of the
Romans legates when it approved the canon. Nevertheless, efforts were made at
the council and after to get Leo’s confirmation of canon 28, but to no avail.
In the three
years following the council, Pope Leo had a very delicate exchange of letters
with the emperor Marcian, the empress Pulcheria, and bishop Anatolius of Constantinople,108 contesting
canon 28 and the territorial principle, defending the “metropolitan system and
the rights considered to be Petrine,” and reproving Anatolius for ambitions to
extend his authority throughout the East.109 In these letters Leo expressed a clear theme, i.e.,
“the lasting and unchangeable character of the rulings of Nicaea,” especially canon
6: which had been made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.110
Finally, in
453, Pope Leo approved what had been decided at Chalcedon but “in sola… fidei
causa.”111 Leo does not seem to have considered that delaying his acceptance
of the council and its dogmatic definition because of his objection to
canon 28 threatened to undermine the council’s work and increase
tensions between East and West.112
The council
of Chalcedon had the task of restoring peace in the Church which was troubled
by the “robber” council of Ephesus of 449. But the peace achieved by Chalcedon was
imperfect. After the council the controversy continued in the East without
interruption, mostly in Egypt, but also in Syria and Asia Minor. The emperor
Zeno (425-491) began to question openly Chalcedon’s doctrine, which gave rise
to the Acacian schism. Official Roman recognition of Constantinople as the
second see in the church’s hierarchy happened during the Fourth Lateran Council
in 1215, but in a completely different context, i.e., “Constantinople was in
the hands of the crusaders, who had created a Latin Patriarchate.”113
101 I have
already discussed this issue of apostolicity in the previous paragraph.
102 Chadwick, The
Church in Ancient Society, 585, citing ACO II.iii.548.13. See also
L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils, 287-289.
103 See
L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils,121,287.
104 Ibid, 287.
See also Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society, 586.
105 Quoted in
L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils, 292.
106 Ibid.,
moreover according to L’Huillier, they used “the interpolated version of canon
6 of Nicaea, ____ω_ε_, stronger than the normal Greek expression __ __ε _ε_.”
107 See De Vries,
Orient et Occident, 147.
108 See
L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils, 293-294.
109 See Ibid.
110 See Ibid, for
the complex question of the interpolated form of canon 6; for its later
interpretation, see above, in chapter one. Moreover, according to F. Dvornik, Pope
Leo’s argument on the apostolic origin is weak because with that criteria
Antioch ought to have the second place and not the third, since Peter founded
an episcopal chair there. Dvornik insists that already at Nicaea there was used
the principle of accommodation to the political context of the time was in use:
Alexandria was more important then Antioch. See F. Dvronik, Byzance et la
Primauté romaine (Paris, 1964), 48.
111 See Ibid, 294
112 See Chadwick,
The Church in Ancient Society, 587.
113 See Ibid,
295.
Chapter 4:
Synthesis and ecclesiological reflections on the Petrine ministry in the communion
of the first five centuries
1.
Introduction
In this
chapter I will proceed in the following manner. First, I will present a
synthesis of the most significant points of the history of the bishops of Rome
and their relations with the eastern bishops, from the end of the second
century (c.180) until the council of Chalcedon that I investigated in this
thesis. I will look also at other structures of the Church, i.e., synods, and
councils. Second, I will concentrate my reflection on the main points met in my
ecclesiological research. Third, I will briefly present some points related to
current ecumenical discussions.
2. The
bishop of Rome and the other bishops at the time of the first four ecumenical
councils
In this
section it is my intention to briefly present the most relevant points of the
long itinerary of the history of the bishops of Rome and the other bishops,
especially the easterners, from the end of the second century until the council
of Chalcedon.
2.1
From the end of the third century until the council of Nicaea
1. In the
first chapter I presented a rapid view of the Petrine ministry and other structures
of the Church of the late second, third and early part of the fourth century, especially
focusing on the great and unique event of the council of Nicaea. I also focused
on the main structures of the Church of that long period (180-325), giving a
plausible and objective picture, in particular looking at the relation of the bishops
of Rome and the western and eastern bishops with the beginning of synodality, conciliarity,
and doctrinal and disciplinary questions. Those local, provincial or regional
meetings were beginning to occur in many parts of the Church, but the most
advanced regional councils in the third century were in North Africa (Carthage)
and under the bishop of Rome, who was the single metropolitan of Italia
suburbicaria. There were similar meetings also in Egypt (Alexandria) and in
Syria (Antioch), and by the early fourth century other local synods were taking
place in the West too. A new form of ecclesiastical gathering emerged with the
synod of Arles in 314. For the first time in history a Roman emperor created
the “technical presuppositions” to convoke a church council, and here also for
the first time a Roman bishop did not attend such an event. In this manner
Constantine was exercising a certain type of leadership for the entire Church,
while the role of the bishop of Rome, at that time remained relatively obscure
and undetermined.
Some bishops
of Rome left a significant witness to the way in which they understood their
ministry as bishop of the see that was most closely associated with Peter. At
the end of the second century, Victor I (189-199) confronted the controversy
about the date of Easter, which came to his attention because of different
observances at Rome. He asked all the bishops to conform in practice with the
church of Rome, which was also the practice of Alexandria. But Irenaeus, bishop
of Lyon, was able to persuade him that the other way of dating Easter was
ancient and that the churches could remain in communion without uniformity of
practice. In this case the bishop of Rome raised a significant question that
was not resolved according to his will. However, as we saw, that question was
resolved at Nicaea in 325. Irenaeus had great respect for the see of Rome, which
he called “the greatest and most ancient church” and whose succession of
bishops he cited as the best illustration of the apostolic succession in all
the churches.
Another
important development was the conflict between Cyprian and Stephen (254-257)
over the validity of baptism by schismatics and heretics. They had different
positions on that issue, and local synods played an important role in dealing
with it. Here, too the Roman bishop was not able to impose his will and
differences in practice continued without a break of communion between the two
churches. In the fourth century, however, the Roman view on sacramental
validity would prevail as a consequence of the Donatist controversy. Cyprian in
his writings recognized the importance of Peter as the source and symbol of the
unity of the Church that Christ intended. Stephen understood to have for
himself the primatus that Cyprian recognized in Peter.
Other
questions troubled the Church as well in the third century. Councils in Alexandria,
Rome, and Antioch had to grapple with questions of trinitarian theology that foreshadowed
issues in the fourth-century Arian controversy. Here we saw Rome and Alexandria
apparently remaining in communion despite large differences in their teaching about
the relationship of Father and Son. In Antioch it would take the Roman army to remove
Paul of Samosata from his see four years after the council that had deposed
him. This was the first time an emperor intervened directly in church affairs
to resolve an internal issue. The criterion Aurelian used to recognize the
legitimate bishop of Antioch was the one with whom “the bishops of Italy and
Rome should communicate in writing,” i.e., with whom they were in communion.
In 314 an
emperor for the first time corresponded with the bishop of Rome when Constantine
asked Miltiades (309-314) to settle a dispute between the Donatists and Caecilian,
the newly elected bishop of Carthage. A Roman synod met to consider the matter and
Miltiades recognized Caecilian. The dispute continued and Constantine asked
Sylvester (314-335) to convoke a synod of western bishops to resolve it. The
council of Arles in 314 also decided against the Donatists and recognized the
authority of the bishop of Rome and his primacy in the West.
Soon a huge
question arose about that was destined to affect the Church for most of the century.
The Arian theology of the relationship between the Father and the Son spread rapidly
from Alexandria and divided the eastern churches. Constantine took a major role
in attempting to settle the controversy and convoked a council at Nicaea in
325. The novelty of that council was that the emperor had made it possible for
the bishops to meet together in a new expression of collegiality to address an
issue affecting nearly the whole Church. Moreover, the bishops present were
conscious that they constituted a “great and holy council.” There were few
western bishops at Nicaea; the Roman bishop sent his legates. The Fathers
believed that their doctrinal decisions were definitive and irrevocable in
character, but it is not clear whether they had the same sense about the canons
issued by the council.
Canon 6 is
the central and most debated canon that concerns the forms of authority pertaining
to some cities that were the metropolis of their provinces (Rome, Alexandria
and Antioch). This canon would play a significant role in the work of later
councils (Constantinople I and Chalcedon) as they continued to give a canonical
basis to structures of jurisdiction and precedence among the churches.
The symbol of
Nicaea would become the de facto norm of faith the universal Church, but
it would take half a century of continued controversy before that occurred.
2.2
From Nicaea until Constantinople I
The council
of 318 Fathers at Nicaea defined the dogma of the divinity of the Word (Logos),
the Son of God, by declaring him to be of the same being or substance as the
Father, using the Greek term homoousios (of one substance or being) to
express this but without specifying its meaning. That definition continued to provoke
divisions among bishops, especially in the East. Synods and councils took place
everywhere in the Church. Emperors were influenced by some Arian bishops, and
some very important bishops were exiled, most notably Athanasius, who was
exiled five times. The role of the bishops of Rome was significant in the time
between Nicaea and Constantinople I. Pope Julius (337-352) received Athanasius
into communion and a Roman synod declared him to be innocent. The Pope defended
him and judged strongly those who had deposed the bishop of Alexandria without consulting
him first. Julius defended the right of Athanasius to appeal to the bishop of
Rome against the decree of an eastern synod and the right of the Pope to hear
such an appeal.
Furthermore,
Julius and the Roman synod firmly rejected the homoiousian theology, holding fast
to the Nicene doctrine. Julius gave a criterion for judging synods and councils
when he evaluated the synod of Tyre as not having universal force because it
had had not followed the customary practice of circulating its decisions to all
the churches. The emperors Constantius and Constans convoked the council of
Sardica (342/3) in the hopes of avoiding a schism between East and West. The
council split into separate eastern and western synods which anathematized each
other and broke off communion. The western synod issued the famous canon 3c
that states the right of appeal to the Roman bishop, who would decide if the
appeal had merit and assign neighboring bishops to hear the case if necessary.
Liberius
(352- 366), faithful to Nicaea, did not recognize the work of some councils that
emperor Constantius II gathered to compel the bishops to condemn Athanasius.
Thus, the Pope was exiled by the emperor and forced to declare Athanasius
guilty and sign the homoiousian formula. When he returned to Rome, he refused
to sign the decrees of the council of Rimini, proving himself faithful once again
to the doctrine of Nicaea. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of
Nazianzus, with their theological competencies, helped deepen insight into the
Nicene faith. They were able to distinguish between the ousia (being)
which is the same in Father and Son, and their hypostases (persons)
which are distinct. But solving a huge problem, others came to existence, i.e.,
the questions whether the Holy Spirit was truly divine and whether Jesus had a
rational human soul. Macedonius, a homoiousian bishop, held that the Son was
like in being with the Father and asserted that the Spirit was “only a superior
creature.” On this topic, Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea with their eminent
writings on the Holy Spirit, paved the way for Gregory the Theologian’s unique
work. About the same time Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, in order to provide
for the personal unity of the divinity and the humanity in Jesus Christ,
proposed that the Divine Word must take the place of a human rational soul.
That doctrine contradicted the soteriological principle, articulated by Gregory
of Nazianzus, that “what was not assumed by the Word was not healed.” Both
Macedonianism and Apollinarianism were condemned at the Council of Nicaea in
381.
Damasus
(366-384), after a controversial election, took possession of the see of Rome. He
understood that the only manner to exercise his ministry was by stressing the
exalted spiritual dignity of his office as a “direct successor of Peter, and so
the rightful heir of the promises made to him by Christ (Matt. 16:18.), and he
believed that this succession gave him a unique juridical power to bind and
loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline.
The Pope wrote letters defending the divinity of the Spirit and the full humanity
of Christ. Damasus published a syllabus (Tomus Damasi) that became the
western formulation of Nicene orthodoxy. Thus, often the bishop of Rome
convoked a Roman synod to discuss doctrinal and disciplinary questions of the
West as far of the East.
The eastern
emperor Theodosius (379-395) was a convinced partisan of Nicene orthodoxy who
enacted stringent anti-pagan laws. In 380 he issued the edict of Thessalonica, known
also as Cunctos populous, commanding all to practice “that religion
which the divine Peter the apostle transmitted to the Romans” and which was
taught by Damasus bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria. That edict was
addressed to the people of Constantinople, and recognized officially, for the
first time the exemplary value of Roman communion and Roman primacy as
justified by apostolic tradition. It also defined orthodoxy as communion with
the bishop of Rome. In 381 Theodosius convoked the council of Constantinople,
the first general council since Nicaea, which later would be recognized
ecumenical, and at the end of the council he ratified its decrees by edict. One
of the important issues at the council was the illegitimate election of Maximus
the Cynic as the bishop of Constantinople after a council of Egyptian bishops
deposed the Arian bishop of that see. The bishop of Rome reproached the Egyptians
and reminded the Alexandrian bishop to observe the canons of Nicaea in regard
to the election of metropolitan bishops by the bishops of their own province.
There were no
western bishops present at Constantinople I as members of the council.
Ascolius, bishop of Thessalonika, then under western civil jurisdiction,was
invited by the emperor Thedosius I to attend the council. He was also a person
whom Damasus trusted. Surely, he informed the Pope about the decisions taken by
the 150 bishops present. The council made some crucial doctrinal decisions. In
addition to condemning Macedonianism and Apollinarianism, it reaffirmed the
faith of Nicaea, and produced a creed that in some aspects revised the Nicene
Creed and added a section on the Holy Spirit. No acts of the council have been
preserved. The best information about it is in the synodical letter of 382,
which was sent to the Roman synod, but does not contain the canons approved at
the council. For this reason historians think that Rome was not informed
officially of the existence of these canons. The synodical letter expounded in
summary form the doctrinal decisions of the Fathers at the council of
Constantinople, namely, the consubstantiality and coeternity of the three
divine persons, and the Word’s taking of humanity.
The most
important canon of the council was canon 3, which asserts that “because it is the
new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honor
after the bishop of Rome.” That canon needs to be understood in its original
context as having clearly practical, even juridical implications. There was
much disagreement at the time about the intention and meaning of canon 3, and
Rome rejected its reasoning about the basis of the primacy of old Rome in the
West and new Rome in the East. It seems likely that Damasus was informed
unofficially of canon 3 by Ascolius. Scholars now think that the Roman synod of
382 was aware of canon 3 and responded to it, because they find it solidly
probable that the first part of the early-sixth century Decretum Gelasianum is
actually a document composed by the 382 Roman synod in response to the canon.
In this text we find that “the holy Roman church has been set before the rest
by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained a primacy by the voice of our Lord
and Savior in the Gospel: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock….’” The Council of
Constantinople would later be recognized as ecumenical by the council of Chalcedon
and by western bishops in the sixth and seventh centuries, but without
accepting its canons.
2.3
From the end of the fourth century until the council of Chalcedon
In this
chapter we saw the role of many bishops of Rome in the doctrinal and disciplinary
controversies and the councils of the fifth century. At the beginning of the century
Pope Innocent I (401-417) intervened in the East’s issues because he did not
accept the deposition of Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, by Theophilus of
Alexandria and all those involved in that affair, and “he assumed a breach of
communion” with all the great sees of East. Innocent asserted a strong claim to
Roman jurisdiction in doctrinal matters in the West, declaring that especially
in questions of faith all his brothers and fellow bishops ought to refer to
none but Peter (himself) so that all the churches might benefit from the
decisions that were made. Also Pope Zosimus (417-418) asserted that the
traditions of the fathers accorded to him a great authority, so that “no one
would dare to dispute [his] judgment.” Moreover, he claimed that from canonical
antiquity and by the consent of all, the authority given to Peter by Christ our
God that “he should loose the bound and bind the loosed, is equally given to
those who have obtained, with his assent, the inheritance of his see. For he [Peter]
has a care of all churches.”
Leo the Great
through his Tomus ad Flavianum asserted a claim to a teaching authority,
not only in the West, but even over the churches of the East. Pope Leo also expressed
his condemnation of the robber council of 449, and he protested its
actions to emperor Theodosius II. Leo is especially to be remembered for
bringing a new and higher level to Damasus’s claims for the papacy, because he consistently
emphasized Peter’s “mystical” presence in Rome and he clearly presented himself
as a successor of Peter’s authority. Leo regarded himself as the first of all
the bishops, with a jurisdiction over all parts of the Church. His decisions
were not autocratic because the most important deliberations were taken either
by asking advice from bishops, priests, and deacons or in agreement with the
Roman synod. Moreover, Leo exercised his pastoral care writing letters to the
western bishops of Italy, Gaul, Africa, and Spain, and obtained from emperor
Valentinian III confirmation of his jurisdiction over all the western
provinces. Leo was also in communication with the eastern bishops. He made
recommendations to the bishops of Antioch and Alexadria, and he sent a letter
to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, whom he reproached severely for his
ambitions. As with earlier councils, the Popes did not participate at the
councils of Ephesus of 431 and 449 or Chalcedon in 451, but they sent legates,
trusted clerics, to represent the bishop of Rome at those meetings. Some
fifth-century authors recognized the Roman bishop as the successor of Peter and
acknowledged that “the care for all belongs to him, because of the dignity of
the see” and that no ordinances should be made “contrary to the mind of the
bishop of Rome.”
On the issues
regarding the relationships between the eastern bishops and the bishop of Rome
prior to or during a council and in response to the councils and their later
reception, we treated the question of Innocent I who was invited by the African
bishops to ratify a sentence against Pelagius and Celestius, which he did,
unambiguously judging and excommunicating them. Pope Zosimus, after being
deceived by Pelagius and Celestius, in dialogue and in a true confrontation
with his African brothers in the episcopate, declared in his Tractoria that
the founders of Pelagianism were guilty of heresy. Another example is the
conflict between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople. They represented
different theological traditions, but personal rivalry between the two bishops
and their sees made things worse. Both Cyril and Nestorius appealed to
Celestine of Rome for support, and he soon took Cyril’s side. After the council
of Ephesus in 431 had begun without John of Antioch and the other Syrian
bishops and supporters of Nestorius, Celestine recognized Cyril’s council and
rejected the council held by John when he arrived. Celestine’s approval
contributed to the acceptance of Cyril’s council, which was also recognized by
the emperor Theodosius II.
In the
disputes leading to the Council of Chalcedon, Flavian, bishop of Antioch and Theodoret,
an Antiochene whose theology was condemned at the “robber council” of 449, appealed
to the “right and just tribunal” of the bishop of Rome to overturn the
council’s judgments. When the emperor Marcian and the empress Pulcheria wanted
to overturn Ephesus 449, Leo helped persuade them that the decisions of a
council could only be overturned by another council. At the council of
Chalcedon the bishops recognized the Tome that Leo had sent to Ephesus
in 449 but never read there. The council Fathers accepted Leo’s letter only
after carefully considering it and making a judgment that it was in accord with
the teaching of the apostles, the faith of Nicaea, and the tradition. They then
declared that “Peter spoke through Leo,” but as I discussed in the chapter,
bishops had on other occasions used similar forms of speech in regard to
clerics who later were considered heretics. Phrases from the Tome were
used in the council’s Definition of Faith, as were several from the 433 Formula
of Union and one from Cyril of Alexandria.
At Chalcedon
(451) the Roman legates were at times unable to impose their views, indeed,
they had to accept the decisions taken by the eastern bishops, especially for
canon 28. Another significant point to remember is the strong influence that
the see of Alexandria exercised in the eastern Mediterranean, and on the see of
Constantinople. The councils helped to regulate those relations among bishops
and episcopal sees.
The most
important canons of Ephesus and Chalcedon that we discussed pertain to the relationship
between the eastern bishops and the bishop of Rome.
In all the councils
there are canons that connect the later councils with Nicaea and regard it as
the foundation of later conciliar decisions. At Ephesus (431) canon 7 declared
that no one is permitted to produce, to edit, or to compose another faith than
that set out by the holy Fathers gathered in the Holy Spirit, otherwise, they
would be separated from communion and deposed. Canon 1 of Chalcedon decreed that
all the canons of previous synods were to be observed. In a similar way canon 6
of Ephesus was meant to ensure that that no one would be able to set aside what
was done at that council.
Canon 28 of
Chalcedon recognized a new ecclesiastical situation in the Church. Through that
controversial and not completely “official” canon, the Fathers confirmed the decision
of canon 3 at the Council of Constantinople in 381, and elevated the see of Constantinople
over Alexandria and Antioch, thus creating an eastern counterpart to Rome’s role
in the West. Constantinople remained in second place after the old Rome, while
“old” Rome retained its prerogatives and privileges. There does not seem to
have been any intention by the council Fathers to deny the apostolicity of the
Roman church. Nevertheless, the Roman legates at Chalcedon unsuccessfully
objected to canon 28 and Leo the Great rejected it because it did not take into
account the Petrine foundation of Rome and the apostolic succession of its
bishops.
The role of
the emperor, empress, or both, and the imperial commissioners was influential
in the relations of the bishops of the Oecumene at that time and efforts
to resolve controversies. Thus, it was emperor Theodosius II who convoked the
Council of Ephesus of 431. The same emperor in 433 insisted with the two parties
of Antioch and Alexandria to reach an agreement on a Formula of Union. Again,
Theodosius II gathered another council at Ephesus in 449 in response to
Eutyches’ appeal of his condemnation by bishop Flavian and the synod at
Constantinople. At Ephesus Dioscorus of Alexandria and Eutyches overturned the
decisions of the synod. After Theodosius’ death, the emperor Marcian, at the
urging of the empress Pulcheria and Leo of Rome, convoked a council of nearly
600 bishops that met at Chalcedon and they appointed commissioners who presided
at the council. The imperial couple pressed the Fathers at Chalcedon to issue a
“fresh” definition of faith, and they obtained it, with the bishops declaring
their statement to be “following the holy fathers.” As with earlier councils,
it took time for Chalcedon’s decisions to be received, with some eastern churches
rejecting it for centuries to come.
3.
Ecclesiological reflection: The Petrine ministry in the communion of churches
at the time of the first four ecumenical councils:
3.1
Conciliarity and synodality
Local and
regional synods and councils were a regular form of decision-making in regard
to teaching (doctrine) and practice (discipline and order) from the late-second
century through the fifth century. Ecumenical councils were intended to speak
to and for the whole Church. The first instance was the Council of Nicaea in
325. We saw that for Athanasius the definition of an ecumenical synod means
that “the whole universe is represented.” We know that the council as
Constantinople I is a council sui generis, because it was formed only by
eastern bishops, with no western representatives, not even papal legates. Athanasius
insisted also that a council needed unanimity in order to claim that it is
truly ecumenical. Moreover, at least for the West, it seems that the most
significant thing is not the participation of the Roman bishop at a council,
but his later recognition of it. Thus the West only formally recognized Constantinople
I at the time of Hormisdas (514-523.)
The role of
the emperor was essential in calling ecumenical councils. The first instance of
an emperor calling a council was when Constantine commanded the western bishops
to meet at Arles in 314. That council, however, was only an expanded local
council to address the western controversy over Donatism. More then ten years
later the same emperor convoked the council of Nicaea (325) to deal with the
Arian controversy in the East. Constantine’s interest in these matters centered
on reestablishing peace in the empire.
Another
important point is the necessary reception of councils. For instance, it
took more than fifty years before the council of Nicaea was widely received and
affirmed at Constantinople I. The creed of the council of Constantinople was
not effectively recognized until it was quoted at Chalcedon and recorded in its
acts just before that council’s definition of faith. Ecumenical councils could
not claim de facto authority; they had to be received.
The bishop of
Rome was not present at the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople I, Ephesus, and
Chalcedon. He usually sent legates to those important meetings, As I showed above,
the first time that the bishop of Rome did not take part in a council but sent
his representatives or observers was the council of Arles in 314. The only
general council in which the bishop of Rome did not have official legates was at
the council of Constantinople in 381; Ascolius was his unofficial
representative, but he did not sign the decrees of the council. Although the Pope
never participated in such meetings, he had the possibility to be well represented
by his clergy, and many times his legates were able to set conditions to be taken
seriously into account by the Fathers of the council. On example of this is
from Chalcedon, where the papal legates demanded that the council’s Fathers
exclude Dioscorus of Alexandria from synodical participation. The imperial
court proposed a formal trial, Dioscorus was abandoned by the great part of the
bishops, and was finally excluded by the council. Another significant influence
on a council by the Roman bishop is the case of Leo the Great at the council of
Chalcedon with his Tomus ad Flavianum. The Fathers recognized that his
doctrine was orthodox, asserting “Peter has spoke through Leo.” But there is
also the opposite result at Chalcedon when the Roman legates were not able to
stop the approval of canon 28.
The eastern
bishops are, along with the bishop of Rome, the main characters throughout this
thesis. On many occasions they appeared in a very impersonal way, namely, as
“the eastern bishops.” On other occasions the bishops of the most important
sees emerged and spoke directly, and were either accused as heretics or
recognized as champions of the orthodox faith. If we had the great and general
councils, it is only because they were the soul of those unique meetings. We
had not the time to investigate their histories, but I think a lot more can be
done to discover their personalities and contributions.
3.2
Super-metropolitans and metropolitans
This section
makes no claim to be exhaustive, but is simply an attempt to be more conscious
of the growth that took place from the council of Nicaea (325) until the
council of Chalcedon (451). In the context of the late Roman empire the word
“metropolis” indicated the chief city of a civil province, but also an
ecclesiastical see of a metropolitan bishop who had jurisdictions over
suffragan bishops. At Nicaea, in canon 6, the geographical territory of the see
of Alexandria is determined for the first time, and the canon refers to the
great cities of Rome and Antioch as models for Alexandria, but without
mentioning the extent of their territory. Above I discussed the context that
led the Fathers to approve canon 6. Two criteria are important to note in
regard to this issue. The first is the territorial principle, according to which
the ecclesiastical territories correspond to the civil territories (as we saw,
with canon 6 this was no longer the case for Alexandria). The three cities
mentioned in canon 6 were also the most important cities of the Roman empire at
the time. This system was accepted at the council of Nicaea, but at
Constantinople I and Chalcedon critiques were raised, especially by Rome’s
strong disagreement in regard to the precedence of Constantinople in canon 3 of
that council and in canon 28 of Chalcedon. In these canons the new Rome
received a place of honor after the old Rome (Constantinople, 381), with “equal
prerogatives,” and “enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome”
(Chalcedon, 451). The second criterion was presented by the bishop of Rome and
the western bishops at the synod of Rome of 382. Here they stressed the
importance of the apostolicity of the churches. With this principle the Roman
council recognized the apostolicity of the three Petrine sees (in the order) of
Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.
3.3
Relations between the bishop of Rome and the eastern bishops and vice versa
The bishop of
Rome in all the cases reported expressed in different manners special care for
his brethren. He was welcoming of unjustly exiled clergy, e.g., Athanasius, or he
was available to listen the delicate doctrinal or disciplinary questions
related by brother bishops, priests, or lay people, e.g., the appeal of the
modalists against the bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, or the many cases of
emperors who asked the bishop of Rome to take care of a particular issue. He
enters into communication with the eastern bishops through letters, e.g., Tomus
ad Flavianum, or through legates, namely, papal representatives at the
councils, and in other ways. But only on few occasions did the Pope leave Rome,
sometimes due to forced exile, as with the terrible experience of Liberius who
was constrained by the emperor to adhere to his demands.
The eastern
bishops often individually or collegially expressed their high esteem for and
recognized a unique authority of the bishop of Rome. This happended on
occasions when individual bishops or councils informed him about their deliberations,
or asked him to help them resolve a particular case, e.g., Flavian’s appeal to
Rome after he was unjustly deposed at Constantinople, or when the Fathers of
the council sent Leo its decrees to receive his approbation. Sometimes it is
not so clear what motivations moved the bishops in their interactions with the
bishop of Rome. It is possible “in time of peace” to observe the public profession
of esteem and recognition of the authority of the bishop of Rome. At such times
bishops had personal relationships with the bishop of Rome and were sometimes
asked to obey him and to conform themselves to the faith and practice of the
Roman church. Many of them, facing personal difficulties with the Pope, changed
their position. It is true that sometimes the bishop of Rome threatened his
interlocutors with breaking off communion if they did not agree with him, as in
the case of the debated date of Easter with Pope Victor. On other occasions it
seems quite strange that the bishop of Rome and the western bishops are not
taken in consideration. Sometimes, the silences of eastern bishops seems to
imply that they were wary of being overly influenced by the bishop of Rome and
or other metropolitans, such as the bishop of Alexandria.
3.4
Conclusion: Ratzinger Formula and recent ecumenical agreements
In my
research I was motivated by years of personal interest and study. But, here I
have to recognize that two other facts recently gave me the desire to continue
to study and to know better the church history of the first millennium. One was
the original assertion made by Prof. Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who some
decades ago in one of his important publications declared: “Rome must not
require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what
had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not
ask for more.”1 Thus, after my ecclesiological and historical
research, with another spirit I looked again at that insightful proposal.2 The second
thing that I want to share before ending my research, is to present the last
update on the delicate and important aspect of the relations between East and
West, especially in regard to the controversial topic of the Petrine ministry.
In October 2007 the Ravenna Document was published and in October 2009 there
was a meeting in Cyprus of the International Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue
between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.3 That dialogue
has progressed in its reflection on the role of the bishop of Rome. The commission
gathered in Paphos issued a joint communiqué reporting on its progress at the
end of its 11th plenary session. The document is titled "The role of the
bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church in the first millennium."
But now, the latest good news arrived some months ago in a letter that Pope
Benedict through Card. Walter Kasper sent to the Patriarch of Constantinople telling
him:
The theme of
the plenary session, the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of the
church in the first millennium, is certainly complex, and will require
extensive study and patient dialogue if we are to aspire to a shared integration
of the traditions of East and West. The Catholic Church understands the Petrine
ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted
in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a
service to unity in truth and charity. The bishop of the church of Rome, which
presides in charity (Saint Ignatius of Antioch), is understood to be the Servus
Servorum Dei (Saint Gregory the Great).
Thus, as my
venerable predecessor the Servant of God Pope John Paul II wrote and I reiterated
on the occasion of my visit to the Phanar in November 2006, it is a question of
seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in
which the ministry of the bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognized
by one and all (Cfr. Ut Unum Sint, 95). Let us therefore ask God to
bless us and may the Holy Spirit guide us along this difficult yet promising
path.4
Finally, in
my study I took seriously into account the “Ratzinger Formula,” and also those
last updates on that issue. Thus, in my thesis I had the possibility, with all
the limits that still remain, to study the church history of the first
centuries and gain insights for my ecclesiological research, and thus make a
small contribution to the discussion on the Petrine ministry. Although the
difficulties and challenges will be always with us, the church history of the
first four ecumenical councils can teach us that now is the time to keep in
mind seriously the will of God to be one in Him, and that “by this everyone
will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”5
1 Joseph
Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, Ignatius,
1987), 199.
2 In 1997 an
official letter of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity,
co-signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in effect retracts what he had earlier
said. He asserted that the doctrine regarding the Primacy of Peter, both of the
first and second millennium of the Magisterium, cannot be ignored.
3 This year,
2010, there will be another meeting in Europe that has the scope to publish a
common document on that topic.
4 Benedict XVI.
Message of His Holiness Benedict XVI to His Holiness Bartholomaios I
Archbishop of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch. Vatican City: 25
November 2009. Web 10 May 2010,
5 John, 13:35.
No comments:
Post a Comment