The Orthodox Eastern Church/Chapter 2

by Adrian Henry Timothy Knottesford Fortescue

 

CHAPTER II

 

ROME AND THE EASTERN CHURCHES

 

The relation of the Eastern bishops to the West means practically their relation to the Pope at Rome. With other Western bishops they had little to do; a Latin bishop was to them just a suffragan^[1] of the Roman Patriarch who, if ever he did appear at a Council, would be sure to vote with his chief.

All the more important was their relation to the Pope himself. It was not always a friendly one. During the second half of these eight centuries especially, there was plenty of friction; mistakes were made by both sides, jealousies and discontent were fostered, till they became a sort of national cause, and so prepared the disaster which came in the 9th century. Nevertheless, during this period the Eastern Churches acknowledged the Primacy of the Pope, and when at last the schism came, it was they who made the change by rejecting it, not the Latins who went on maintaining it.

A chain of texts from various writers, drawn up to prove a thesis, is never very interesting to read. Moreover, the texts I have to produce now have been quoted already a number of times. They form part of the argument for the Papacy in the first centuries, a subject about which it seems that everything on either side has already been said. Nevertheless, the question is to Catholics by far the most important of all concerning the Eastern Churches, and it is especially necessary as balancing what we have to consider in the last paragraph. We will only take the Eastern (chiefly Greek) writers, or cases that concern their Church into account, leaving out altogether all the Latin Fathers and Western Councils, as well as the very earliest writers (Apostolic Fathers and Apologists), in whose time one can hardly yet speak of an Eastern and a Western Church. Our Catena is then only a fragment; the historic argument for the Roman Primacy must be studied in one of the books written on that subject. It will be convenient first to see what the great Eastern Fathers and then the later Byzantine theologians say about the Papacy; secondly, to notice some cases in which we find the Primacy working; thirdly, to examine the relations between Popes and the councils that both Catholics and Orthodox accept as œcumenical; and, fourthly, to consider the other side of the question, the causes of ill-feeling between the Churches that prepared the schism.

 

1. The Eastern Fathers and the Papacy.

The great school of Greek and Syrian Fathers begins with the time of Constantine (Eusebius of Cæsarea, † c. 340), and lasts till about that of Marcian (450–457) and the Monophysite heresy—just over a century.

These Fathers in the first place believed that St. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles, and the Rock on which our Lord built his Church. They not only saw it in their New Testament, they had received the tradition from their forbears. Long ago Origen († 254) had written: "See what is said by the Lord to that great fundament and most solid rock on which Christ built his Church: Oh, thou of little faith, he says, why hast thou doubted?"^[2] Eusebius, the Father of Church History († c. 340), writes, quoting Origen: "Peter on whom the Church of Christ is built up (οἰκοδομεῖ) left one Epistle generally received."^[3] St. Basil († 379): "When we say Peter we mean the son of Jonas, brother of Andrew, who since he was the greatest in faith received the building up of the Church to himself."^[4] St. Ephrem († 373) represents our Lord as saying to St. Peter: "Simon, my disciple, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I have called you a Rock because you shall hold up all my building. You are the inspector^[5] of those who build my Church on earth; if they want to build anything badly you as the foundation shall restrain them, you are the Head of the fountain of my teaching. … Behold, I have made you lord over all my treasures."^[6] St. Cyril of Jerusalem († 386) calls him: "Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Supreme Herald of the Church," "Key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven." St. John Chrysostom († 407) seems to never mention St. Peter without adding the strongest expressions of his dignity. No one of the Fathers, either Greek or Latin, so constantly refers to the Primacy of St. Peter, or gives him such splendid titles, as St. Chrysostom. St. Peter is the chief (κορυφαῖος) of the Apostles,^[7] the first Apostle, head of their company,^[8] first in the Church, the unbreakable Rock and immovable basement, &c.^[9] He is the column of the Church, firmament of faith, fundament of the confession, fisherman of the whole world,^[10] head of the brotherhood, president of all the world, foundation of the Church.^[11] But it is needless to multiply examples of what no one who at all knows St. John Chrysostom will deny. Let any one open a volume of his sermons by chance and look for the first mention of St. Peter; he will almost certainly find such titles as these after it. St. Gregory of Nazianzum († c. 390),^[12] St. Gregory of Nyssa († c. 395),^[13] St. Epiphanius († 403),^[14] St. Cyril of Alexandria († 444),^[15] all have the same thing to say: St. Peter was Prince of the Apostles, the foundation on which our Lord built his Church, and the Shepherd of the whole flock. To this day the Church of Constantinople in her office honours St. Peter as "The foundation of the Church and Rock of the faith,"^[16] and "Immovable basis of dogmas," "throne of the faith," "sitting on the first throne of the Apostles."^[17]

These same Fathers knew that St. Peter had been the first Bishop of Rome, and that the Pope is his successor. Eusebius writes of "the first succession of the Apostles," and says: "Linus received the Bishopric of the Roman Church first after Peter,"^[18] Pope Victor "was the thirteenth bishop of the Roman Church since Peter."^[19] Epiphanius: "the succession of the Roman Bishops is thus: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement," &c.^[20] The Fathers of Chalcedon cry out, when St. Leo's letter has been read to them: "Peter has spoken by Leo," the Fathers of the sixth general council (Constantinople III, in 680) repeat their words: "Peter has been spoken by Agatho."^[21] Eulogius of Alexandria († 608) "said of the chair of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, that he himself sits therein to this day in his successors."^[22] On the feast of SS. Peter and Paul the Church of Constantinople still sings: "Let the Protector of Rome, the Steward of the kingdom, Rock of the faith, firm foundation stone of the Catholic Church, be celebrated in sacred hymns."^[23] And on the commemoration of all the Apostles (June 30th) the Menaion contains the hymn: "Summit and foundation of the Apostles, you left all things and followed your Master, saying: May I die with you, so as to live the life of the Blessed. You became the first Bishop of Rome; you were the glory and honour of the greatest of all cities and fulcrum of the Church, oh Peter, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail."^[24]

From these premisses the Eastern Church drew the same conclusion as the Latins. The foundation stone must last as long as the building that rests on it, and therefore it could not have died with St. Peter. It must still exist in his successors. St. John Chrysostom says: "Why did he (our Lord) shed his blood? To redeem the sheep which he handed over to Peter and to his successors."^[25] So St. Peter's successor is the Chief Bishop, just as he was the Chief Apostle, and has jurisdiction over all other bishops. Most of the cases in which we see this belief of the Eastern Church are cases of appeals to Rome, to which we shall come later (p. 67). Meanwhile here are some texts, chosen out of a great number. St. Basil writes to Pope Damasus, telling him of the troubles of the Eastern Church, and adding: "The only remedy we can see for these evils is a visitation from your Mercy."^[26] He writes to St. Athanasius: "We thought it expedient to write to the Bishop of Rome that he should examine our affairs, and to advise him, since it would be difficult to send any one (he means a legate) thence by the common decree of a synod, to himself use his lawful authority in the matter (αὐτὸν αὐθεντῆσαι περὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα), choosing men (legates) fit to bear the fatigue of a journey, and also fit to correct all perverse people in our parts gently and firmly."^[27] Sozomen, who continued Eusebius's Church History (c. 440–450), says that "the Bishop of the Romans, having examined the accusations against them (St. Athanasius and other Eastern bishops), and having found that they all agreed with the faith of the Nicene Synod, admitted them to communion with himself. And since the care of all belonged to him because of the rank of his see, he restored to each one his Church."^[28]

At the same time a Latin bishop, St. Peter Chrysologus (Archbishop of Ravenna, † 450), 'Was asked by Eutyches, Archimandrite of the monastery without the walls of Constantinople and Father of the Monophysite sect, to take his side. Chrysologus answers him: "Honourable brother, I advise you to obediently attend in all things to what has been written by the most blessed Pope of the City of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and reigns in his own See, teaches the truth of faith to those who seek it."^[29] So Eutyches got no help from Ravenna. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria († 458), is considered to have been the most learned exegetical writer of the East.^[30] He was deposed by the Robber Synod of Ephesus in 449, and promptly appealed to St. Leo I, the reigning Pope. He says to St. Leo: "If Paul, preacher of truth, and trumpet of the Holy Ghost, turns to the great Peter, in order to get his explanation for the benefit of those who doubted about whether to keep the (old) law at Antioch, how much more do we, humble and weak ones, come to your Apostolic See, that we may receive from you the remedy for the Church's wounds. For you must hold the first place in all things."^[31] A Bishop of Patara writes to Justinian (527–565) concerning Pope St. Silverius (536–537) whom he, the Emperor, was persecuting: "There are many sovereigns on earth, but not one who is placed over the Church of the whole world, as is the Pope."^[32] But Justinian begins the Byzantine period, of which hereafter (p. 63). It is strange that the schismatical Eastern Church should still use words that express the Roman Primacy. St. Martin occupied the chair of St. Peter from 649–655. In a synod at the Lateran (649) he rejected two decrees (the Ekthesis of Heraclius and the Typos of Constans II), in which the Emperors had drawn up a compromise between the Catholic faith and the Monothelite heresy. In 653 the Emperor^[33] sent to seize him, had him dragged first to the Island Naxos, then to Constantinople, where he was condemned for high treason and banished to the Chersonese. Here he died from the effects of the most barbarous ill-treatment, torture, and the want even of bread, on September 16, 655; and he is honoured as a martyr for the faith by East and West. We keep his feast on November 12th, they on April 13th and September 20th, and they sing in his honour this hymn: "By what name shall I call thee, oh Martin! Shall I call thee the glorious ruler of the Orthodox Faith for all? Or the sacred chief of divine dogmas, unstained by error? … Or the most true reprover of heresy? … We know that thou wast the foundation of bishops, pillar of the Orthodox Faith, teacher of religion. … Thou didst adorn the divine See of Peter, and since thou from this divine Rock didst guard the Church unmoved, so now with him (St. Peter) art thou glorified."^[34] On St. Gregory the Great's feast they have even more to say about the Roman See: "Most sacred Pastor, thou art the successor of the see and also of the zeal of the first one (τοῦ κορυφαίου, St. Peter), cleansing the people and bringing them to God. Successor of the throne of the prince of the choir of disciples, whence thou dost by thy teaching as with a torch enlighten the faithful, oh Gregory! When the first of Churches embraced thee, she watered all the earth that is beneath the sun with divine teaching. Hail, torch of religion, who dost light up all the world with the glory of thy words! lighthouse, who dost call back to the shore those who are tossed among the waves of error! Instrument sounded by the breath of the Holy Ghost!"^[35] They have a great devotion to St. Gregory Dialogos, as they call him; and both hymns are an example of a very honourable conservatism, that will not alter their venerable office, in spite of later quarrels against the "divine See of Peter," the "first of Churches."

These Greek Fathers, however, not only looked to Rome in cases of Church government; Rome was also the last Court of Appeal in questions of faith. When other bishops disagreed about some point of doctrine, when there was no opportunity of summoning a general council (they could not make bishops come together from every part of the Empire to settle each dispute); then they asked what was the teaching of the first of Churches, in which St. Peter, the rock and foundation of all, still lived and taught. Sozomen says of the heresy of Macedonius: "When this question was moved, and when the quarrel grew from day to day, the Bishop of the City of Rome having heard of it wrote to the Eastern Churches that they must confess the Trinity, consubstantial, equal in honour and glory, just as the Western bishops do. When he had done this all were silent, as the controversy was ended by the decision of the Roman Church, and the question was seen to be at an end."^[36] He refers to St. Damasus's letter in 378, and his words are a Greek parallel to St. Augustine's, "The decrees have come from the Apostolic See, the cause is finished"^[37]—Roma locuta est, causa finita est. St. Cyril of Alexandria († 444) writes to accuse Nestorius of heresy to his "Most loving Father Celestine" (Pope, 422–432). "Since God requires us to be watchful in these matters," he says, "and since the ancient custom of the Church persuades us to communicate them to your Holiness, I write, forced by the necessity of the case, and tell you that Satan is now confusing everything and raging against the Church of God."^[38] St. Celestine answers him: "Using the authority of our See, in our place (he is making him his Legate) you shall carry out this sentence with due severity, namely, that he (Nestorius) must either write out a profession condemning his wicked assertions within ten days from this meeting (C. of Ephesus), or, if he will not do so, your Holiness shall provide for that Church (Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople), and shall know that he is in every way to be removed from our communion."^[39] Theodoret represents our Lord as saying to St. Peter: "As I did not forsake you in the waves, so do you be a support to your brothers in trouble, give to them the same help by which you yourself were saved, do not reject those who stumble, but lift them up when they are falling. For this reason I let you stumble, but do not let you fall, through you I give firmness to those who are tossed about."^[40] We have seen how Theodoret knows he has to act towards the Pope as the other Apostles towards their Pope, St. Peter (p. 56). At the time of the Three Chapters, Severus Scholasticus at Constantinople writes to Fulgentius Ferrandus, Deacon at Carthage and a famous Canonist († c. 546), to ask him whether one may say that Jesus Christ is "one of the holy and undivided Trinity" (it is the old question of the Communicatio Idiomatum: may one apply to the man Jesus Christ divine names?). To whom Fulgentius answers: "Most prudent sir, if you want to know the truth, ask in the first place the Bishop of the Apostolic See, whose right judgement stands firm by the judgement of truth, and is strengthened by the weight of his authority."^[41] Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople (552–582), writes to Pope Vigilius (540–555): "We receive and accept the letters of the Prelates of the Apostolic Roman See, both those of the others and especially those of Leo of holy memory, which were written concerning the true faith and concerning the four holy councils."^[42] Sergius of Cyprus writes to Pope Theodore I (642–649): "Christ our God made your illustrious Apostolic See a firmament fixed by God and immovable, oh sacred Chief! For you are Peter, as the Divine word truly says, and on your foundation the pillars of the Church are fixed. He gave to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and declared that you have power to bind and loosen what is in heaven or on earth. You are the destroyer of profane heresies, and the Prince and Doctor of the orthodox and immaculate faith. Wherefore, most holy Father, do not despise the fact that the faith of your Fathers is troubled and blown about by certain heretical winds and by them endangered; pierce through the cloud of these foolish persons with the light of your Divine knowledge."^[43] St. Maximus the Confessor, Archimandrite of the monastery of Chrysopolis by Constantinople, suffered torture and death for the same cause and at the same time as Pope St. Martin (p. 56). He, too, was tried for high treason, was accused, of all amazing charges, of being responsible for the Saracen conquest of Egypt, and was told to give up his obstinate private opinion, and to accept the Emperor's Typos. To which he answered: "I have no private opinion, but only agree with the Catholic Church." After having been twice banished, and suffering every conceivable privation, he was scourged through the city, had his tongue cut out, and died of his torture on August 13, 662. He is honoured as a martyr by us and by the Greeks.^[44] This saint, too, has the plainest things to say about the Roman See: "All the ends of the earth, and all who in any place really confess the Lord in the true faith, turn their eyes to the most holy Roman Church and to her confession and faith, as to a sun of eternal light. … For since the beginning, when the Word of God came down to us, being made man, all the Churches of the Christians have received one only firm basis and foundation, the great Church that is there (at Rome), against which, according to the Saviour's promise, the gates of hell shall never prevail, and which holds the keys of the true faith in him, which gives the true and only piety to those who come to her devoutly, which shuts the mouth of all heretics."^[45] And he writes of Pyrrhus, the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople (638–655): "If he wants to neither be considered, nor to really be a heretic, he need not try to please first this one and then that one—to do this would be superfluous and unreasonable, because just as all are scandalized at him because one is scandalized, so if he satisfies this one, without doubt all will be satisfied. So let him hasten above all to satisfy the Roman See. If he agrees with her, every one will in all places call him pious and orthodox. Indeed, he is talking in vain if he tries to persuade people like myself before he has satisfied and begged forgiveness of the most blessed Pope of the holy Church of the Romans, that is, of the Apostolic See, which in all things and through all things commands and has authority and power of binding and loosening over the holy Churches of God all over the world, given by the very Word of God made man, as well as by all holy synods according to the sacred Canons."^[46] Since then this agreement with the Roman Church is to all these Greeks the standard of orthodoxy, since she is the foundation and basis of the faith, and since our Lord cannot ever make it a condition of true belief to agree with heresy, Pope St. Agatho (678–681) is right in telling Constantine III: "The Apostolic Church of Christ (he means the Roman Church) by the grace of Almighty God, will never be shown to have wandered from the path of Apostolic tradition, nor has it ever fallen into heretical novelties; but as it was founded spotless at the time of the beginning of the Christian faith by its founders, the Princes of Christ's Apostles, so it remains to the end according to the promise of our Lord and Saviour himself, who says in the holy Gospels to the Prince of his disciples: Peter, Peter, behold Satan sought to have you, that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail, and do you, being converted, confirm your brethren. He bids him confirm his brethren, and it is known to all people that the Apostolic Pontiffs, predecessors of my unworthiness, have always confidently done so."^[47]

We have, then, as the belief of these Fathers that (i) Peter was the Prince of the Apostles and the Rock, (2) the Roman Pontiffs succeed him in this office, (3) therefore the Roman Bishop has jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ, (4) and the faith of his Church is the standard of orthodoxy for all Christians. And these four points make up exactly what Catholics believe about the Pope.

We may here add a word about the Roman Emperors who reigned at Constantinople. They were always ready to magnify their Patriarch, always shamelessly interfering in ecclesiastical matters, the worst enemies of the liberty of the Church, continually trying to enforce some new ordinance or dogma of their own by their civil power, and so continually in opposition to the Pope. Yet, until Cæsar went into open schism, even Cæsar knew who was the bond of union and the visible centre of the Catholic Church. The Code of Roman Law does not seem the sort of book in which one would find arguments for the Roman Primacy. Yet it contains the edict of Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius (in 390): "We desire that all the peoples who are governed by the laws of our Clemency shall profess the religion which Peter, the divine Apostle, taught to the Romans, which is manifest as the one still left there by him, which, as is well known, is followed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of Apostolic holiness; that, according to the Apostolic teaching and the faith of the Gospel, we believe in one Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in equal majesty in the Holy Trinity. We command that those who follow this law be called by the name of Catholic Christians, and we judge the others to be mad and foolish to bear the shame of a heretical belief. Nor shall their conventicles be called churches."^[48] St. Damasus was Pope from 366 to 384. With his name the Emperors couple that of Peter, the Patriarch of the second see in Christendom, which had been the bulwark of the faith in Arian times (Athanasius). But the standard by which they measure who is to be called a "Catholic Christian" is the faith left by St. Peter at Rome.

Gratian (Emperor from 375–383 in the West, while Theodosius I reigned in the East) ordered that "those bishops who had been banished (by his Arian predecessors) should be restored to their flocks, and that the sacred buildings should be given to those who embrace the communion of Damasus."^[49] We have seen what Pope Agatho wrote to Consiantine III (668–685, cf. p. 60). Constantine answers to Agatho's successor, Pope Leo II (682–683, Agatho had died meanwhile): "With the eyes of our mind We saw him, as it were the very Prince of the Apostolic choir himself, as Peter the Bishop of the first See, divinely proclaiming the mystery of the whole dispensation."^[50]

The great Justinian (527–565) in 533 sends a profession of his faith to Pope John II (533–535), whom he calls the "Head of all the Churches."^[51] He puts into his Codex the profession he had made to Agapitus (535–536) and the Pope's answers^[52]; and he calls the Roman See "the source of the priesthood (fons Sacerdotii)" and "the venerable See of the most high Apostle Peter." "No one doubts," he says, "that the height of the Supreme Pontificate is at Rome."^[53] So well does he know what is the result of schism with the Roman See that, while he is persecuting and ill-using Pope Vigilius (540–555), he imagines a subtle distinction between the Chair of Peter and its occupant, that people may believe that he is in perfect peace with the one while he is harrying the other.^[54]

It is usual to speak of the time from Justinian I (527) to the fall of Constantinople (1453) as the Byzantine period. By 527 the Patriarch of New Rome has become the unquestioned chief of all Orthodox Eastern Christians; the other Orthodox Patriarchs are now only his vassals. Byzantium is the centre of the Christian East (as far, at least, as the Empire is concerned); her liturgy is used almost throughout what is left of the Empire; the whole system of Byzantine Canon Law and the customs that accompany it (including the shameless subjection of the things of God to Cæsar that is the special note of this time) are established. After 1453 there is no Empire left and no Cæsar to lord it over his bishops. The Church that is only the despised religion of rayahs under the Sultan has entered upon a new period of her history. The history of that Byzantine time is cut sharply into two unequal portions by the great schism in the 9th century. But until that schism this Byzantine Church, in spite of an ever-growing ill-feeling against Rome among her bishops, accepted and believed in the Pope's Primacy. This belief was an inheritance left to her by the great Greek Fathers, as we have seen. She did not cast it off till the time of Photius. Some of the texts I have already quoted (Eutychius of Constantinople, the Bishop of Patara, Eulogius of Alexandria, Sergius of Cyprus, St. Maximus) belong to this period. Here are more quotations to the same effect:—

In 646 Africa was a province governed by an Imperial (civil) Exarch sent from Constantinople. In that year the African bishops write to St. Theodore (Pope from 642–649): "Father of Fathers! in honour of the most holy Apostle Peter, your Apostolic See has received, by divine decree, as a special and unique inheritance, the office of examining and scrutinizing the holy dogmas of the Church." And further in their letter: "It has been established from the beginning that the Pontiffs of the holy Apostolic See condemn evil and confirm good. It is a rule of ancient Canons^[55] that, wherever a question concerning the Church be moved, even in the most distant lands, nothing can be examined nor defined until the matter has been brought before the Apostolic See."^[56]

But these bishops, it may be said, were, in spite of the Emperor's Exarch, Latins. St. Sophronius of Jerusalem († 638) was not a Latin. While he was fighting against Monothelism, he chose one of his bishops, Stephen of Dora, to go to Rome, since he could not do so himself. He first takes his envoy to Mount Calvary, and there solemnly adjures him: "Go through all the world," he says, "till you come to the Apostolic See (Rome was a long way off from Jerusalem, and the journey was a dangerous one then), where is the foundation of the Orthodox belief. Tell the most holy persons of that see all about our difficulties: do not cease to beg and entreat them until their Apostolic and divine wisdom shall pronounce the victorious sentence, and shall canonically destroy and root out this new heresy."^[57] Stephen comes to Rome several times. The last time was in 649. Before Pope Martin I (649–655) he makes his denunciation: "I desire to denounce Monothelism to the chief see, mistress of all sees; I desire to do so to your highest and divine see, that it may altogether heal the wound. Your see is accustomed to do so since the beginning by its Apostolic and canonical authority. For it is evident that Peter received not only the keys of heaven, he alone amongst all. Besides the keys of heaven this true Head and Prince of the Apostles was first charged to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church. … He alone was to confirm his colleagues and brethren, since God, who became man for us, gave him power and priestly authority over all. … And Sophronius, the former Patriarch of blessed memory, knowing this, told my lowliness without delay to come to this great Apostolic See."^[58]

About 669 two monks of Gangres, Theodosius and Theodore, wrote an account of the chief adversaries of Monothehsm. They call the Martyr-Pope, St. Martin (p. 56), "Supreme and Apostolic Pope, chief of all the priestly hierarchy under the sun, Sovereign and Œcumenical Pope, Apostolic Prince."^[59]

In the 8th century St. Stephen the Younger says of the Iconoclastic Synod of Hieria (753): "How can you call a synod œcumenical when the Bishop of Rome has not consented to it, since the Canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be settled without the Pope of Rome?"^[60]

Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople (784–806), writes to St. Adrian I (Pope from 772–795): "Your Holiness has inherited the see of the divine Apostle Peter. Wherefore lawfully and by the will of God, you preside over all the hierarchy of the Church."^[61]

It would be tedious to go on quoting from the almost endless number of similar sayings of Byzantine theologians.^[62] As a last example before the schism, we may take St. Theodore of Studium († 826). He was Hegoumenos (abbot) of the famous Monastery Studium (Studion) at Constantinople, which in his time held a thousand monks, a reformer of Greek monasticism according to St. Basil's rule, and especially a leader of the Orthodox and a heroic confessor in Iconoclast times. We keep his feast on November 12th (in the Martyrology), the Eastern Church on November 11th. No one of the Orthodox saints who were resisting Iconoclasm had more, only St. John Damascene as much influence as this St. Theodore. When he died Photius was just born (probably in the same year, 826); forty years afterwards the schism had broken out. St. Theodore Studita, then, may stand for one of the very last representatives of the old Byzantine Church before the schism. And he speaks very plainly about the Pope's Primacy. He knows that the Pope of his time (Paschal, 817–824) succeeds to St. Peter's rights: "To you (he writes) spoke Christ our Lord: And you, being converted, shall confirm your brethren. Behold, now is the time and place: help us, you who are ordained by God for this. Stretch out your hand as far as you can. You have the power from God, since you are Prince of all. Frighten, we beg of you, the heretical beasts (Iconoclasts) with the pen of your divine word. Good shepherd, lay down your life for your sheep, we pray."^[63] Again: "Since Christ our God gave to the great Peter, after the keys of the kingdom of heaven, also the right of guiding the sheep, to Peter, then, or to his successor, we must refer whatever novelty is introduced into the Catholic Church by those who wander from the truth."^[64] "Hear us," he writes again to Pope Paschal, "Apostolic Head, Shepherd set by God over the sheep of Christ, key-bearer of the kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith, on whom is built the Catholic Church, for you are Peter, you who rule the See of Peter."^[65] So to Rome all questions must go. "If the Emperor," he writes to the Sacellarius^[66] Leo, "is not content, if, as he says, the Patriarch Nicephorus has wandered from the truth, both sides should send an embassy to the Roman (Patriarch), and should from him accept the certainty of faith."^[67]

The Emperor Michael II (820–829) had summoned a synod of bishops at Constantinople to discuss the question of images. St. Theodore writes to him in the name of this synod: "If there be anything as to which your Magnificence doubts whether it can be rightly settled by the Patriarch, then order a declaration to be sent for from Old Rome, as heretofore and from the beginning has been the custom, according to the tradition of the Fathers. For she is the first of the Churches of God in which first sat Peter to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter," &c.^[68] When Paschal has answered, condemning the Iconoclasts, Theodore writes to a certain Naucratius: "Now, indeed, I say before God and men that the heretics have separated themselves from the Body of Christ, from the supreme see in which Christ has placed the keys of faith, against which the gates of hell have never prevailed, and never shall prevail till the end. Let the most holy, the Apostolic, the beloved Paschal rejoice; he has accomplished the work of Peter."^[69] St. Theodore then knows that the Pope is universal Primate, that to him we must appeal in questions of discipline and of faith, because he has the "keys of faith against which the gates of hell shall never prevail," because from him we receive "the certainty of faith." He also knows that no general council can be called, save under the Pope. He writes to Pope Leo III (795–816): "If they, arrogating authority, have not feared to summon a heretical council, who could not even summon an orthodox one without your authority, according to the ancient custom, how much more is it just and even necessary to hold a lawful one under your divine leadership."^[70] Lastly, to be an orthodox Catholic we must be in union with Rome. "Now is the acceptable time," he tells the Emperor, "that we (the Byzantine Church riddled with Iconoclasm) … should unite ourselves with Rome, the summit of the Churches of God, and through her to the three other Patriarchs (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem)."^[71]

It is then with no uncertain voice that this Byzantine Church proclaims her faith in the Roman Primacy and Infallibility just before the tyranny of an Emperor and the ambition of an intruded Patriarch drag her into schism.

 

2. Appeals to Rome from the East.

This faith of the Eastern Churches did not remain a mere theory. The Fathers we have quoted not only proclaimed the Pope's universal jurisdiction; they continually made use of it to defend themselves against opponents; so that the long list of their appeals to Rome speaks even more eloquently than their words.

As far back as the second century "Irenæus relates that Polycarp, who was even then still alive, came to Rome while Anicetus presided over the Roman Church and conversed with Anicetus about the question of the day of Easter."^[72] Anicetus reigned c. 157–168, St. Polycarp († c. 166), Bishop of Smyrna, had sat at the feet of St. John the Apostle himself.

The case of Pope Victor I (189–199) and the Quartodecimans is well known. It is hardly one of an appeal; but when he "pronounced" those Asiatic bishops "by letters to be outside the unity,"^[73] although St. Irenæus wrote to advise him not to be so severe,^[74] no one questioned his right to excommunicate them. Dionysius of Alexandria († 264), "moved by his zeal for religion, had written to Ammonius and Euphranore against the heresy of Sabellius. But certain brothers in the Church, men of sound faith, not knowing the reason for which he had written, went to Rome and accused him to his namesake Dionysius, the Roman Bishop (259–268). He, having heard these things, … sent a letter to Dionysius, to tell him what he had been accused of by them. And, in order to clear himself as soon as possible, he wrote books which he called a Compendium and an Apology."^[75] The great Athanasius "sought refuge in Rome as in a most safe harbour of his Communion."^[76] In 340 an Arian Synod at Antioch had professed to depose him, and had set up Gregory of Cappadocia as rival Bishop of Alexandria. Theodoret says: "But Athanasius, already knowing their wiles, went away to Western parts. For the Eusebians (strict Arians), having got together calumnies against Athanasius, had denounced him to Bishop Julius, who at that time administered the Roman Church (337–352). Julius, following the law of the Church, ordered them to come to Rome, and also summoned Athanasius to explain his case. And Athanasius, obeying the summons, started at once on the journey. But they who had made up the fable would not come to Rome, because they knew that their lie would be found out."^[77] The Pope, in a Roman Synod (341), declared St. Athanasius innocent of all their charges and refused to countenance his deposition. He wrote a long letter to these Eusebians, saying among other things: "Do you not know that this is the custom, that you should first write to us, and that what is right should be settled here?"^[78] In 343 the Council of Sardica (now Sofia in Bulgaria) met. It drew up twenty Canons, which the second council in Trullo (692) afterwards approved for the Byzantine Church. Canon 3 determines that a bishop shall be judged by the other bishops of his province, but "if a deposed bishop thinks he has good cause to demand a new inquiry he shall, out of reverence for the blessed Apostle Peter, write to Rome to Pope Julius, so that he may set up another tribunal from among bishops living near the province and himself appoint a judge." Canon 4 forbids the other bishops to fill his see in this case until the Pope has pronounced his sentence. Canon 5 provides that the Pope shall appoint as judge either a neighbouring bishop or a legate sent from Rome. Hosius of Cordova presided at this synod, and its Canons were often joined to the Canons of Nicaea drawn up eighteen years earlier, so that they were sometimes quoted as Nicene. One hundred and seventy-three bishops sat at Sardica; but it was not an oecumenical council. It was a legitimate and orthodox provincial synod of Eastern bishops recognizing the right of appeal with special reference to the action of St. Athanasius.

In 404 Theophilus of Alexandria unjustly deposed St. John Chrysostom from his See of Constantinople. St. John then appealed to Pope Innocent I (401–417),^[79] who received his appeal, refused to sanction the deposition,^[80] and made it a condition of communion with Alexander of Antioch that he should have "fulfilled all conditions in the cause of the blessed and truly worthy Bishop John."^[81] Pope Boniface I (418–422), Innocent's successor, settled a dispute in Greece by giving an unpopular bishop another and a better see. Socrates says: "Peregrinus had been ordained Bishop of Patras. But since the inhabitants of that town would not have him, the Bishop of the City of Rome ordered him to be appointed to the metropolitan See of Corinth, since the bishop of that Church was dead."^[82] After Boniface I came St. Celestine I (422–432). He writes to the Illyrian bishops: "You shall notice that, amid the other cares and various business that always come to us from all Churches, we take special care of you," and he says why this various business always comes to him from all Churches: "For we especially are concerned about all, since Christ gave us the duty (necessitas) of arranging all things in St. Peter the Apostle when he gave him the keys to open and to shut."^[83]

St. Jerome (c. 331–420) had been the secretary of Pope Damasus (366–384). Years afterwards he still remembered how much work he had then done: "When I was helping Damasus, Bishop of the City of Rome," he writes, "and was answering the consultations of synods from East and West,"^[84] … Theodoret of Cyrus († 458) was deposed by the Robber Synod of Ephesus in 449. He at once appeals to Pope Leo the Great: "We beg, and pray, and entreat and humbly implore your Holiness to bring help to the Churches of God that are tossed in this storm. … And I await the sentence of your Apostolic See, and I beg and implore your Holiness to help me, who appeal to your right and just tribunal, and to order me to come to you and to show you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles. … Above all, I beg you to tell me whether I am to accept this unjust deposition or not; for I await your sentence. And if you order me to abide by the judgement, I will do so, and I will no longer trouble any man, but will await the just judgement of God our Saviour."^[85] At the same time he writes to a Roman priest Renatus (afterwards one of the Legates at Chalcedon): "I beg your Holiness to persuade your most holy and most blessed Archbishop (St. Leo) to use his Apostolic authority and to order us to hasten to your synod. For that most holy see has for many reasons the primacy over the Churches in the whole world, and especially for this reason that it has remained unspotted by heresy, nor has any one of contrary opinion sat therein, but it has kept entire the Apostolic grace. We agree to whatever sentence you may pronounce, trusting in the justice of your judgement."^[86] Nor was Theodoret's appeal in vain. The acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451) expressly say that St. Leo restored him to his see.^[87] The same Robber Synod of Ephesus, in 449, deposed Flavian of Constantinople. Liberatus (c. 566), the historian of the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies, says: "Flavian appealed by letter to the Apostolic See, through its legates, against the sentence which had been pronounced against him";^[88] and the Emperor Valentinian III (423–455) writes to Theodosius II (408–450), his partner in the East, to explain the matter: "We must," he writes, "in our time, too, keep unchanged the honour of reverence that we owe to the blessed Apostle Peter, inasmuch as that the most blessed Bishop of the Roman city, to whom ancient use has given the primacy of the priesthood over all, must have occasion and power to judge in cases of faith and in the affairs of bishops. … Because of this the Bishop of Constantinople, according to solemn use and according to the custom of the Council, has appealed to him by letter."^[89] Pope Gelasius I (492–496), writing to Faustus, his Legate at Constantinople,^[90] and again to the Bishops of Dardania,^[91] and maintaining the ancient law according to which "the appeals of the whole Church come to this see to be examined, but no one may ever appeal from Rome," is able to quote a long list of famous cases to prove his point. The Syrian archimandrites and monks, surrounded by Monophysites, appeal to "Hormisdas (Pope, 514–523), the most holy and blessed Patriarch of the whole world, who holds the See of the Prince of the Apostles … whom Christ our God has set up as Chief Shepherd and Teacher and Physician of souls."^[92] It was this Pope Hormisdas who drew up the famous formula (p. 85). Pope Theodore I (642–649) is not satisfied with the right of Paul to be Patriarch of Constantinople (641) while Pyrrhus, his predecessor, is still alive. Pyrrhus comes to fall at his feet and is received back into communion.^[93] He makes Stephen of Dora Vicar of the holy See for the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.^[94] St. Martin I (649–655) deposes Peter of Alexandria and Macedonius of Antioch for heresy, and appoints John of Philadelphia his Vicar Apostolic for Syria and Palestine: "In the name of the power we have received from God through St. Peter We order Our brother John to hold Our place in all ecclesiastical affairs of the East and to set up bishops, priests and deacons in all towns that are under the Sees of Antioch and Jerusalem."^[95] In 717 the Emperor Leo III (the Isaurian, 717-741) as soon as he succeeds to the throne sends his profession of faith to Pope Gregory II (715–731).^[96]

These cases may stand as examples of the Pope's jurisdiction in the East during the time before the schism. Many more of the same kind will be found quoted in text-books of dogmatic theology.^[97]

 

3. The Popes and the General Councils.

The Roman Primacy over Eastern Christendom is also illustrated by the relations between Popes and œcumenical councils. Seven of these councils were held before the schism. Orthodox Christians then count seven, and only seven, synods as œcumenical; the twelve that we have held since are to them, of course, only local Latin councils, and heretical besides. And we specially do not agree about the eighth general council. It was held at the very time of the schism: we count as the œcumenical council the one held in 869 (Constantinople IV), which certainly most fully recognized the Pope's primacy; their eighth council is the one of 879,^[98] to us only a "Pseudosynodus Photiana." We shall come back to these synods in the account of the schism. Leaving, then, this disputed case out of account, we have seven councils acknowledged as œcumenical by both Catholics and Orthodox, namely: (1) Nicæa I (325), (2) Constantinople I (381), (3) Ephesus (431), (4) Chalcedon (451), (5) Constantinople II (553), (6) Constantinople III or Trullanum I (680), (7) Nicæa II (787).

What Catholics believe about general councils is this: Since the Pope is the visible Head of the Church on earth, he alone has the right (1) of summoning a general council, (2) of presiding at it when summoned, (3) of confirming or rejecting its decrees. The analogy with a king and his parliament is obvious. But the Pope may do any of these three things by deputy. He may authorize another person to summon the council, he may preside thereat through his legate, he may even confirm its decrees beforehand, by instructing his legates what they are to agree with, or by sending to the council a standard of orthodoxy to guide it. When the council then follows the Pope's directions, we have already the necessary agreement between the chief and his followers and there is no absolute need of a further papal confirmation.^[99] It is difficult to see what other theory will fit the facts. We cannot discover what councils were œcumenical by counting the number of their attendants. Many of them were quite small assemblies; at Nicæa in 325 about 318 bishops were present, at the second general council only 150, at Ephesus 198, at the sixth 174. On the other hand, the Synod of Ariminium (Rimini) in 359 mustered four hundred bishops; but it has never been counted œcumenical. Nor would it be possible to make the œcumenical character of a council depend on the attendance of representatives from all parts of the Church. There were very few Western bishops present at any of the earlier general councils, only four at Nicæa,^[100] none at all at the second, two at the third. Still less can the summons or confirmation of the Emperor constitute a general council. The Emperor has no commission from Christ to rule the Church, the possibility of holding such councils would depend upon the existence of the Empire, whereas there has been no Emperor in the East since 1453, none in the West since 1805. Lastly, Emperors have summoned and declared as œcumenical such heretical synods as the Iconoclast one ordered by Constantine V in 753 at Hieria. The theory that would find most favour with other Christians would doubtless be that it is the general acceptance of the Church that makes a council œcumenical. But the Church, that is, the great body of the faithful, and their bishops, want to know first whether a synod is œcumenical before they can tell whether it is their duty to accept it. When "the whole world groaned and wondered to find itself Arian" it would have been of little use to tell a Christian, amid the endless confusion of synods and anti-synods which all claimed to represent the Church, to accept that one as œcumenical which—he and others like himself accepted. Moreover, there has always been a party (often a large party) which rejected these councils. The test of orthodoxy is to accept them; those Christians are orthodox who agree with the general councils. If, then, we say that those councils are general with which the orthodox agree, we have a perfect example of a vicious circle. There remains, then, our position, that an œcumenical synod is one summoned by the Pope,^[101] which sits under his presidency as Primate, whose decrees receive the Papal assent. It may, however, happen that a council, which is not œcumenical in itself, receives this character afterwards from the Pope's confirmation; his assent may supply for former irregularities. There are parallel cases in Canon and Civil Law.^[102] The second and fifth general councils are of this nature. Œcumenical neither in their summons nor in their sessions, they became so later through the Pope's assent. And, lastly, the result of this is that only those acts of a council which receive the Pope's assent have the force of law for Catholics.^[103]

We will consider, first, the five remaining councils, and then the second and fifth.

The First Council of Nicæa (325) was summoned by Constantine. This fact, which is not in dispute, is vouched for by all the historians of that time^[104] and by the synodal letter of the council itself.^[105] The only question, then, is whether the Emperor was asked or commissioned to do so by the Pope (Sylvester I, 314–335). The matter is uncertain. Rufin says he acted "according to the judgement of the bishops (ex sacerdotum sententia)," and it may be urged that at least one of the bishops concerned was the first Patriarch. The sixth general council (Constantinople III, 680) says so explicitly: "Constantine and Silvester summoned the great Synod of Nicaea,"^[106] so does the Liber Pontificalis.^[107] The Emperor had a sort of honorary precedence at the council; but he did not preside. He opened the first session with a speech, and then left the discussion to "the presidents of the synod."^[108] Who were these presidents? In all lists of the members, and especially in the still extant list of subscribers, Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, signs first, then two Roman priests who were with him, Vitus and Vincent.^[109] Alexander of Alexandria and Eustathius of Antioch were present; yet this local Spanish bishop and his two priests sign before the great Patriarchs. It would be a mystery, did not Hosius himself give the explanation. He signs expressly "In the name of the Church of Rome, the Churches of Italy, Spain, and all the West."^[110] He and the two priests are the legates of their Patriarch. Gelasius of Cyzicus (c. 475) says so, too, in his history of the council.^[111] As far then as we have any evidence as to who presided, it points to the Papal Legates. We know nothing about any definite act of confirmation by the Pope, but the Roman Church undoubtedly accepted the decrees of which she (except for the one moment of weakness of Liberius)^[112] was always the chief defender.^[113]

The Council of Ephesus (431) was summoned by the Emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III. So it repeatedly declares in its acts, in the first session: "The synod gathered together by the oracle of the most God-beloved and Christ-loving sovereigns."^[114] So little did these sovereigns conceive themselves as acting for the Pope that they sent him (St. Celestine I, 422–432) an invitation too.^[115] But when the Fathers had met they acknowledged Celestine's primacy. He had already written to St. Cyril of Alexandria,^[116] telling him to excommunicate Nestorius, if he did not repent,^[117] now he sent as additional legates two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, and a priest, Philip, telling them to be on Cyril's side in everything, as he was already authorized to act in the name of the Roman Church, not to let themselves be mixed up in controversy, but to behave as judges.^[118] He also writes to the synod, recommending his legates, telling the fathers to observe Canon Law and not to quarrel, and saying that he is convinced that they will agree with the condemnation of Nestorius that he has already pronounced. He thank Theodosius for the trouble he has taken.^[119] The legates arrive late^[120]; when they come, Philip speaks for them: "There is no doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, Prince and Chief of the Apostles, column of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom, and that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was given to him, and he till the present time and always lives and judges in his successors. Therefore his successor and Vicegerent, our holy and most blessed Pope, the Bishop Celestine, has sent us to this synod to take his place."^[121] The legates are then shown the Acts of the first session, which they had missed; they approve of them, and read St. Celestine's letter to the synod. Firmus, Exarch of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, then declares that the Fathers have only done what the Pope had bidden. The legates approve of everything and sign the Acts. Meanwhile Candidian, the Emperor's representative, had received orders from his master to look after things and keep order, but not to interfere in questions of faith.^[122] The Acts of Ephesus were not afterwards confirmed by the Pope. He had told the council what to do and it had obeyed him. There was already the necessary agreement between Pope and council, a further confirmation would have been superfluous. St. Celestine's successor, Sixtus III (432–440), writes to St. Cyril that the Nestorians may be received again into communion by him "if they repent and reject what the holy synod with our approbation has rejected."^[123] But this approbation means chiefly the consent between the Fathers and the legates when the synod was sitting.

The Council of Chalcedon (451) was the largest assembly that the Church had ever seen; 630 bishops met at it. It is also for all time the great touchstone of Orthodoxy in the East. Nearly all the great schisms that have cut away branches from the Eastern Church (except Nestorianism) are Monophysite, and Chalcedon condemned Monophysism. The Copts, Jacobites, Armenians, &c., are still out of communion with Constantinople, as well as with Rome, because they reject the Council of Chalcedon. We have already seen how clearly this council acknowledges the Roman Primacy (pp. 36, 37). No synod ever more entirely satisfied the conditions we require. St. Leo the Great formally asked the Emperor to summon it. He wrote to Theodosius II: "All the Churches of our parts, all bishops, with sighs and tears, beg your clemency to order a general council to meet in Italy."^[124] Theodosius died too soon (450), and Marcian (450–457), his successor, did not fix on Italy as the place for the council. But he was very conscious that in summoning the council he was obeying the Pope. He writes to St. Leo that he will do as he wishes "so that, when all impious error has been removed through the council held by your authority, a great peace may reign among all bishops of the Catholic faith."^[125] St. Leo answers, asking him now to wait awhile, because at that moment wars and troubles would prevent many bishops from attending.^[126] But Marcian had summoned the council to Chalcedon, just across the water opposite Constantinople, before the Pope's letter arrived. So St. Leo accepts what has happened: "Since you, out of zeal for the Catholic faith, have wished the council to take place now, I send my brother and fellow-bishop Paschasius, from that province which seems safest^[127] to stand in my place, in order that I may not appear to stand in the way of your goodwill."^[128] He then writes to the Fathers at Chalcedon: "The general council has come together by command of the Christian princes (Marcian and his wife Pulcheria), and by the consent of the Apostolic See."^[129] There is no question as to who presided. First sat the Roman Legates, then Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, &c. (p. 36).^[130] The Legates in the Pope's name condemn and suspend Dioscur of Alexandria (p. 14). The council accepts St. Leo's dogmatic letter, "Peter has spoken by Leo" (p. 37). We have also seen how (although it was no longer necessary) the council begs for the Pope's approval, how he confirms the dogmatic decrees it had passed with his Legates, and rejects the Canons drawn up in their absence (pp. 40–42).

Passing over for the present the fifth council, we come to the sixth, Constantinople III, in 680. It met in a hall of the Emperor's palace under a great cupola, and is therefore also called the first council in Trullo (Trullanum I).^[131] This is the council that came at the end of the Monothelite troubles; it has become famous because it counted Pope Honorius (625–638) among the Monothelite heretics. In the thirteenth session: "We also anathematize Honorius, the former Pope of Old Rome, because we find in his letter to Sergius that he followed this one in all things and confirmed his impious dogmas." And in the sixteenth session: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius, Anathema to the heretic Honorius, Anathema to the heretic Pyrrhus."^[132] In spite of this, the council has several things to say in favour of the Roman Primacy. The Emperor Constantine IV (Pogonatus, 668–685), before summoning it wrote to Pope Donus (676–678) asking for his co-operation and for legates.^[133] Donus died too soon, but Agatho, his successor (678–681), first held a Roman Synod (Easter, 680) to prepare the great one, then sent two priests, Theodore and George, and a deacon John, as his Legates to Constantinople, besides writing a dogmatic letter to Constantine condemning the heresy.^[134] The Legates presided at the council, the Emperor was present at many sessions without interfering in the discussion.^[135] The Legates read out Agatho's letter, and the Fathers say to Constantine: "The supreme Prince of the Apostles agreed with us, we had his follower and the successor of his see as our ally explaining the divine mystery in his letter. That ancient City of Rome sent you a profession of faith written by God, and the daylight of the faith shone from the West. We saw parchment and writing, but Peter spoke through Agatho."^[136] They write to the Pope that he "stands on the firm Rock of Faith."^[137] They ask for his confirmation: "We have, in company with you, clearly taught the Orthodox faith, and we ask your Holiness to sign it with your venerable rescript."^[138] Meanwhile Agatho died and Leo II (682–683) followed him. Leo examined the Acts and confirmed them all, except that he distinctly refused to acknowledge the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic. He, too, condemned him, but only because "he had not crushed out the flame of heresy at once, as behoved his Apostolic authority, but rather fostered it by his negligence."^[139] So the statement made by the council that Honorius was a heretic, not having been confirmed by Rome, affects us Catholics as little as the Canons of Constantinople I.^[140]

The seventh general council in 787, at Nicæa (Nicænum II), condemned Iconoclasm. The Empress Irene (Regent for her son Constantine VI, 797–802) and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasius (784–806), both wrote in the first place to Pope Adrian I (772–795) about summoning a general synod. Adrian answered in two long letters. He rejoices at their Orthodox disposition and at their wish to put an end to the heresy that has so long cut them off from the Communion of the Roman See. He writes a long defence of holy images from the Bible and the Fathers, he will send his Legates to the synod. This letter he gives to the Archpriest Peter and to the Abbot of St. Saba at Rome, also named Peter, who are to represent him. These Legates preside throughout the council; the Acts always name them first, then Tarasius.^[141] But Tarasius opened the proceedings with a speech and conducted most of the business. The Empress sent two representatives, who, as usual, have the place of honour, but do not interfere. About three hundred bishops were present. The Pope's letter is read out, containing the words: "The See of Peter shines as holding the Primacy over the whole world and stands as head of all the Churches of God"; also, "Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, who first sat on the Apostolic throne, left the Primacy of his Apostleship and of his pastoral care to his successors, who shall always sit on his most sacred chair, to whom he, by divine command, left the power of authority given to himself by God our Lord and Saviour."^[142] And "the holy synod answered: The whole most sacred synod so believes, is so convinced, so teaches."^[143] Adrian soon after writes to Charles the Great, telling him how the council had condemned Iconoclasm as he had directed, and adding, "Therefore we accepted the synod";^[144] he also had the Acts translated into Latin.

Our eighth general council, the Fourth of Constantinople (869), was as papal in its feeling as any council could be. It signed the formula of Hormisdas (cf. pp. 85–86); nor are the facts that it was summoned by the Pope, presided over by his Legates, and confirmed by him, in dispute. Unfortunately, when the Orthodox speak of the eighth general council they mean, not this one, but Photius' synod, held ten years later (879), that was as anti-papal as ours was papal. The ways had already parted. The story of these rival synods is part of that of the great schism (p. 156). There remain the two irregular councils, the second and the fifth. We have already seen that the second council (Constantinople I, in 381) was not œcumenical as summoned nor in its sessions. It was a small local synod of Eastern bishops, presided over successively by three Patriarchs of Constantinople. The Pope was not represented; no Western bishop was present (p. 32). We have also seen that at first the council was not accepted, but that the Pope eventually accepted its Creed, while rejecting its Canons (pp. 33–34). It is that acceptance alone that to Catholics gives this synod a right to be counted among the general councils. Indeed it is difficult to see what other claim it can have. Practically it owes its importance entirely to the Creed it drew up as an enlargement of the Creed of Nicæa, and that we still call the Nicene Creed.^[145]

The Second Council of Constantinople (553) is a parallel case. Justinian wanted a council to condemn the "Three Chapters." These Three Chapters were: 1. The person and the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia († 428). 2. The writings of Theodoret of Cyrus († 458). 3. The letter of Ibas of Edessa († 457) to a certain Persian named Maris. They were all suspected of Nestorianism, and the Emperor hoped that their condemnation would conciliate the Monophysites in Egypt and Syria, who stood for the extreme opposite side. Others, especially the Western bishops, saw in the condemnation a dangerous concession to the Copts and Jacobites. The weakness of the Pope, Vigilius (540–555), may be partly excused because of the persecution he had to bear. At first he agreed to the summoning of a general council. The Emperor then invited him to Constantinople, and, after much hesitation and delay, he arrived there in 547. But he was torn between the two sides. Mennas of Constantinople (536–552), the Emperor, and the Eastern bishops wanted the Three Chapters to be condemned, on the other hand his own Latin bishops saw in the proposed condemnation a veiled attack against the Council of Chalcedon. In 548 he declared the condemnation in his ludicatum, while strongly upholding Chalcedon. The Western bishops were very angry. Then Justinian, in defiance of his promise, before the council met, published a much sharper decree against the Three Chapters. Vigilius protested, and was taken prisoner and ill-treated by the Emperor's order. He gave, and then retracted, his consent to a council. In any case the Western bishops would not come to it. The council met in May, 553; 165 bishops were present, all Easterns, except six Africans. They asked the Pope to preside, but he would not come. Instead he sent them a new decree, the Constitutum, condemning sixty propositions of Theodore, but forbidding any other condemnation. The council refused to accept the Constitutum, and condemned all Three Chapters, also, among others, Origen.^[146] At last Vigilius, deserted by all his friends, worn out with the long imprisonment and the ill-treatment, only anxious to be set free and to go back home to Rome, gave in and also condemned the Three Chapters. He was then allowed to go back, but the unhappy Pope never saw his own city again. He died of the effects of ill-treatment at Syracuse in 555, leaving the reputation of a well-meaning man who was not strong enough to bear persecution, or to firmly make up his mind in a difficult question. He was the weakest of all the Popes. His successor, Pelagius I (555–561), confirmed the council, which was then, after some opposition, accepted by all the West; although one see, Aquileia, stayed in schism till 700, because of this question. It need hardly be said that all the dogmatic decrees of the Second Council of Constantinople entirely agree with the faith of Ephesus and Chalcedon. No one has disputed its orthodoxy. The question about which Vigilius could not make up his mind was whether it was expedient to condemn men who had died a century ago, whose names, in the West at any rate, were hardly known, for the chance of conciliating these Monophysites. The Western bishops were angry at the Emperor's interference, at their Pope being taken to Constantinople and ill-treated there. If they thought the council was contradicting Chalcedon, they were mistaken. Its 5th Canon formally confirms the last council.^[147]

We may end this discussion of the Roman Primacy over Eastern Christendom by quoting the famous Formula of Hormisdas. St. Hormisdas was Pope from 514 to 523. The great work of his reign was to put an end to the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches that had lasted thirty- five years (484–519), which we call the Acacian Schism. It was the result of another of the many unhappy interferences of the Emperor in ecclesiastical affairs. In 482 the Emperor Zeno (474–491) tried to win the Egyptian and Syrian Monophysites by condemning the Council of Chalcedon. This he did in his Henotikon (Ἑνοτικόν, Unification), at the same time, to please the Melkites as well, condemning Nestorius and Eutyches. Acacius (Akakios) of Constantinople (471–489), who was quarrelling with John Talaia, the Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria, warmly accepted the Henotikon, as did nearly all the Eastern bishops. Peter the Dyer of Antioch (p. 48) and most of the Monophysites also agreed. So a great union between the Byzantine Church and these heretics was brought about. The Copts and Jacobites were once more at peace with Constantinople and Cæsar, but at the cost of sacrificing a general council. The Orthodox had given up their orthodoxy and had conceded what the heretics wanted. Pope Felix II (483–492) protested against the Henotikon and, as the Eastern Church persisted in accepting it, the first great schism between the Churches was brought about. Acacius and his bishops struck the Pope's name off their diptychs; there was no inter-communion for thirty-five years. Only the "Akoimetai," the "sleepless" monks in the capital, still kept up communion with Rome. It was this state of things to which Hormisdas at last succeeded in putting an end. There had already been insurrections and tumults among the people in favour of re-union. The Eastern bishops also began to be frightened when they saw how far things had gone; already in 512 they had written to Pope Symmachus (Hormisdas's predecessor, 498–514) "begging for the Communion of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles; and they maintain by letters and embassies that they will obey the Apostolic See."^[148] In 516 John of Nicopolis and his suffragans implored Hormisdas to restore them to his communion, and eagerly protested their orthodoxy and their adherence to Chalcedon. The Pope then sends a sub-deacon named Pullio with a "Libellus," which was to be signed by every bishop as a condition of re-union. At first the Emperor (Anastasius I) stood in the way; but when he died in 518 his successor, Justin I (518–527), wrote, as well as the Patriarch (John II, 518–520), asking the Pope to receive them back. Hormisdas sent Legates with the same Libellus. The Patriarch, the Emperor, and all the chief bishops signed it, the names of Zeno and Acacius were struck out of the diptychs, that of the Pope restored. On Easter Day, 519, the union was restored in the Cathedral of Constantinople. This Libellus is the Formula of Hormisdas. It was signed in 516 by all the Illyrian bishops,^[149] in 517 the Spanish Church forbade any Greek priest to be admitted to communion until he had signed it,^[150] in 519 all the Eastern prelates signed;^[151] Epiphanius (520–536) and Mennas (536–552) of Constantinople and the great Justinian signed.^[152] The Legates who present it allow no discussion, Roma locuta est. Certain bishops in Thessaly want to change some of its words. The Legates tell them: "It is not in your power to do this; if you will sign, thank God; if you will not, we have come and greeted you, we will now walk away."^[153] At the Council of 869 (our eighth general council) Greeks and Latins sign this formula; it was confirmed by the two re-union councils, the second of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439), and it played a great part at the Vatican Council (1870).

The formula, then, is as follows: "The first salvation^[154] is to keep the rule of the true faith and in no way to forsake the laws of the Fathers. And the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church, cannot be passed over; they are proved by the facts,^[155] because in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion is always kept immaculate. We then, wishing by no means to be parted from that hope and faith, following also in everything the laws of the Fathers, anathematize all heresies, especially the heretic Nestorius, sometime Bishop of the City of Constantinople, who was condemned at the Council of Ephesus by the blessed Celestine, Pope of the City of Rome, and by Cyril, Bishop of the City of Alexandria. We also anathematize both Eutyches and Dioscur of Alexandria, condemned by the holy Synod of Chalcedon, which we follow and embrace and which, following the holy Nicene Synod, taught the Apostolic Faith. We detest that parricide Timothy, called the Cat,^[156] also his disciple and follower Peter of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and anathematize Acacius, some time Bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Apostolic See, and who was the accomplice and follower of those others, and all who remained in their communion; because Acacius justly deserves the same condemnation as theirs for having mixed himself up in their society. Further, we condemn Peter of Antioch with all his followers and the followers of all the abovementioned. We receive and approve all the letters of the blessed Pope Leo, which he wrote about the Christian religion; and, as we have said, we follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. Therefore, I hope that I may deserve to be with you in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See, in which Communion is the whole, real and perfect solidity of the Christian Religion. And I promise that in future I will not say in the holy Mysteries the names of those who are banished from the Communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who do not agree with the Apostolic See. And if in any way I ever attempt to depart from this my profession, I acknowledge that by my own sentence I shall become an accomplice of those whom I have condemned. This my profession I sign with my own hand and address to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of Rome."^[157] We may, then, end our list of evidences of the Roman Primacy in the East with this formula of the early 6th century, than which certainly nothing could be plainer.

 

4. Ill-feeling towards Rome in the East.

But there is also another side to the question. It is certain that the whole body of Eastern orthodox Christians would not have so easily fallen away from communion with the West and with the Pontiff whom they had so often acknowledged as their chief, if everything had been going quite smoothly till the 9th century. The violent language against Rome, the hatred of everything Latin, that we see among these Byzantines as soon as the schism breaks out, were caused by deeper motives than the disputed succession of Ignatius and Photius. The Filioque in the Creed, our use of unleavened bread and habit of fasting on Saturday, could not be the only causes of so much bitterness. It is true that long before Photius was born an ill-feeling against Latins and against the Latin Patriarch had been growing up at Constantinople. This ill-feeling shows itself most plainly during the last three centuries before the schism, during the Byzantine period, since Justinian. But even earlier there was often friction. In the first place we do not often find among these Eastern bishops the same enthusiasm for Rome as among Latins: they acknowledged its primacy, but more coldly. Words like St. Jerome's impassioned appeal to Pope Damasus^[158] are the expression of the feelings of a Latin surrounded by Greeks and Syrians. To Christians of the Eastern Churches the Pope was always more of a stranger. He was not their Patriarch. Whereas he governed, guided, advised his own Latin bishops continually, sent his Pallium to archbishops, was appealed to in every sort of difficulty,^[159] Eastern Christians in similar cases looked to their own patriarchs. True, they could appeal from them to the first see, the Synod of Sardica had said so (p. 69), and we have seen a number of cases; but such appeals were rather the exception, brought about by some flagrant injustice. The normal life of those Churches went on without much reference to Rome.

Then they had not been founded by the Pope. To our fathers the Roman Church was mother and mistress in many senses; their loyalty saw in her, not only the Church of the Prince-Apostle, not only the Patriarchal See; she was the mother who had borne them. From Rome, sent by a Pope, had come the apostles to whom they owed the faith, it was Rome that had founded their dioceses, ordained their first bishops. In the case of the great Eastern Churches there was no such special relation of filial piety. Their bishops traced their lines straight back to the first disciples of all, many of them were themselves Apostolic Churches and therefore, in this regard, on the same level as Rome. They had their own ancient liturgies and customs and had never been affected by the Roman use, the Roman Calendar. True, in the West, too, there were other liturgies, but all the time the Roman Mass was spreading throughout the Pope's Patriarchate, influencing the other Latin rites, till at last it took their place everywhere, save in one or two corners. The Papal Mass, the "use of the Roman Curia" throughout the West was the great architype to be admired and copied; but to Eastern Christians it was an utterly strange thing, of which they understood nothing, not even the language.

It seems absurd to us that a difference of language should be so great a barrier; but it is true that one of the great causes of estrangement between the two halves of Christendom was that they could not understand each other, simply because some talked Latin and some Greek. Here Rome had the advantage. There was always a Greek colony there and Greek monasteries. There have been, even as late as in the 7th and 8th centuries, Greek Popes.^[160] So the Romans could always manage to get a Greek letter translated. But the Greeks could not understand Latin. The Roman Court since it had been fixed at Constantinople had become completely Hellenized. The whole body of Latin literature, sacred or profane, was a closed book to the Byzantines. At first Law, the Ius Romanum, had still been taught in Latin and St. Gregory the Wonder-worker († 270), who wanted to study it, complains that he must first learn "the hard language of the Romans."^[161] But since Justinian even Law was written in Greek, and from that time there were very few Greeks who could speak Latin. Peter of Antioch received a letter from Pope Leo IX (1048–1054)^[162] and he had to send it to Constantinople to have it translated. Even Photius, the most learned man of his age, could not understand Latin. On the other hand, Pope Vigilius (540–555) spent eight unhappy years at Constantinople, but amid his troubles he never learned Greek. The Popes kept a perpetual Legate, the Apocrisarius, at the Emperor's Court since the time of Justinian; but even these Legates generally knew no Greek. St. Gregory the Great († 604) had been Apocrisarius at Constantinople, but he never knew any language except Latin. This difference of language was a very serious hindrance to the mutual influence that would have prevented the Churches from drifting apart.^[163] And so, since the Pope and his Latin Court were so strange to these Greeks, since his intervention was rare in their affairs, it must have often seemed to them, when he did stretch out his arm across the seas, that he was interfering unduly in their business. One can imagine an Eastern bishop, such as Theophilus of Alexandria, for instance (p. 69), who was congratulating himself on having triumphed, suddenly finding that his arrangements were all reversed by the result of his adversary's appeal to Rome, and thinking in his disappointment: Why cannot the Roman Patriarch let things alone?

But undoubtedly the chief cause of all ill-feeling was the ambition of Constantinople. We have seen how the bishops of that city step by step climbed up to the first place in the East; how easily they displaced the other Eastern Patriarchs; how they could always count on the help of the Emperor; and how the adversary, who always stood in their way, was the Pope. They could not pretend to ignore him, and at each step they foresaw his certain opposition. It was most of all in the minds of the Œcumenical Patriarchs that anger and jealousy against Old Rome rankled. And when the schism at last came it was natural that it should be caused by a dispute between these two sees. Nor is it to be wondered that when Constantinople fell away, all the other Eastern Sees held by her and shared her schism. By that time Constantinople was almost as unquestioned a mistress of the Orthodox East as Rome was of the Catholic West. The great mass of the populations of Egypt and Syria had long ago fallen away from both and had nothing to do with the schism of the 9th century. What was left was the Byzantine Church, and its chief was the Œcumenical Patriarch.

We must confess that Rome had sometimes given these Eastern Christians cause for discontent. Of course nothing can justify schism; they had so often protested that at Rome still stood the Rock on which Christ had built his Church, they had so often acknowledged the Pope's right as Supreme Judge. Still, the most rightful judges have made mistakes; if we look for the cause of the anger against Rome which made the schism possible, we shall have to put at any rate some of it down to the account of Rome herself. It is not difficult to find examples. As far back as the 4th century she had taken a line in the Meletian schism at Antioch^[164] that every one now regrets. In 330 Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch, was banished by the Arians; as usual they set up an Arian rival bishop, and when he died they carried on that line. Many of the Catholic Antiochenes seem to have accepted these Arian bishops; but a small party still clung to exiled Eustathius. In 360 the Arian bishop Eudoxius died; in 361 his party elected Meletius, Bishop of Sebaste, to succeed him. But this time they had made a mistake. Meletius showed himself to be Homoousian and Catholic; so they chose a real Arian, Euzoius, instead of him. But Meletius, whom they had banished, soon came back, still claiming to be Patriarch of Antioch, and he was supported by most of the Catholics, There were now three parties at Antioch, the Arians under Euzoius, and two Catholic parties, the larger one under Meletius and a small body of rigid conservatives who still looked upon Eustathius as the rightful bishop, in which, after all, they were strictly right. But when at last Eustathius died, his party would have undoubtedly fallen in with the other Catholics and accepted Meletius, there would then have been only the two parties, Catholic and Arian, as there were throughout the Empire, but for the ill-considered action of a Latin bishop. Lucifer of Calaris^[165] was always over-eager and intolerant in the pride of his untarnished orthodoxy. Later he made a schism in Italy, because he would not allow converted Arians to be restored to their office. Now he perpetuates the schism at Antioch. Without a shadow of right—at any rate he had no jurisdiction in Syria—he ordains a successor to Eustathius, a certain Paulinus. So the two Catholic parties remain separate and the schism goes on. When Meletius died (381) his party choose Flavian, after Paulinus the Eustathians appoint Evagrius. Unhappily Rome stood by what Lucifer had done: she and Alexandria acknowledged the Eustathian line, all the rest of the East was for Meletius. The disagreement about the succession at Antioch did not, however, disturb good relations in other matters. St. John Chrysostom, for instance, was a devoted friend to Meletius and had been ordained by Flavian, yet he was on equally good terms with the Pope, to whom he appealed in his own trouble (p. 69). It was chiefly St. John who at last brought about peace. He and Theophilus of Alexandria arranged that Flavian should send an embassy to Rome in 398, asking to be recognized, and that the Pope should grant what he asked. No successor was appointed to Flavian's rival Evagrius († 392). Still a remnant of the Eustathian party, although without a bishop of their own, refused to acknowledge the Patriarchs of the Meletian line till 415. Then they, too, gave in. Alexander of Antioch, Flavian's second successor, went with all his court and his clergy to hear the liturgy in their church, and they all sang psalms together. After eighty-five years at last the schism was over. The Roman Church has put the name of St. Meletius in her Martyrology, "giving the honour of her altars after death to him to whom she refused her communion while alive."^[166] But the action of Lucifer, and of Rome in supporting him, had been a deplorable mistake. There were other cases of the same kind. At Laodicea all the East acknowledged Pelagius, Rome Apollinaris,^[167] the future heretic († c. 385). In these and similar cases the Pope (St. Damasus, 366–384) knew of Eastern affairs almost entirely through Peter, Patriarch of Alexandria, who was in exile at Rome, and who, of course, described everything from his own point of view. It was not always quite a fair one. Peter had suffered much from Arians and semi-Arians; he was very loyal to the old friends in Syria who, with him, had borne the long persecution, he was inclined to look rather askance on the new school of bishops, who, although they were now defending the faith of Nicaea, had been the pupils of a suspect tradition. It was from the school of such people as Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, Macedonius, all semi-Arians, that the great Cappadocians, St. Basil and the two Gregories had come,^[168] and it was owing to the old hatred of Alexandria for those semi-Arians that Peter and even Damasus were disposed to look somewhat coldly upon the great Greek Fathers, whose orthodoxy was really as untarnished as their own. Indeed, the traditional close alliance between the two first sees, Rome and Alexandria, often caused friction between Rome and the other Eastern Churches. Continually one sees that Antioch and Constantinople on the one side are opposed to Alexandria on the other: and Rome was nearly always for Alexandria.

Gradually another cause of resentment grew up against the Latins. Although the Greeks generously did their part in spreading the Gospel on all sides they always had a feeling that the full perfection of the Christian Church involved the Roman Empire. Optatus of Milevis († 400) had said so in Africa: "The Commonwealth is not in the Church, but the Church is in the Commonwealth, that is, in the Roman Empire."^[169] One constantly finds this feeling that the cause of Cæsar is the cause of Christ,^[170] and the more the Eastern bishops began to look upon the Emperor as their chief, the more obvious it must have seemed. But gradually Old Rome was falling away from the Empire. The Fathers of Chalcedon had pretended that she held the primacy because she was the capital of the Empire, and now the very city that had given her name to the Roman world could hardly be counted any longer as part of that world. In 401 the Goths had poured into Italy; in 410 they had plundered Rome; in 452 the Huns had only just not done so too (St. Leo turned them back), but they had overrun the Roman land. Then the East-Goths set up a kingdom in Italy (493-555) in open defiance of Cæsar, and soon after came the Lombards (568). The Bishop of Old Rome sat in the midst of barbarians, and, what is worse, he began to have friendly relations with them. They heard that he had made the closest alliance with a barbarian king; that the Franks were encouraged by him to conquer the Lombard kingdom, and, instead of giving it back to Caesar, to keep it themselves. At last came the final blow. In 800, in his own cathedral he crowned their king Emperor, set up a rival Augustus, ignoring the rightful line that still went on at New Rome. It must have seemed to the Byzantine bishops sheer high treason. They would never acknowledge Charles but as the barbarian king of a barbarian people. Irene, even if a woman, was Augustus Cæsar, Autocrat of the Romans, and Charles was only the king of the Franks.^[171] The Roman Patriarch had finally cut himself off from the Roman world. Seventy years later came the schism. Undoubtedly the rival Empire helped to foster ill-feeling. And, however much loyalty one feels as a Frank and a Latin to the long and splendid line of Western Emperors that lasted for just over a thousand years, from Charles the Great (800) to Francis I (1804), one must also sympathize with the feeling of the Court of Byzantium. After all, they had the direct line of continuity.

The culmination of these unfriendly relations was reached when the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204, and set up a Frank as Emperor even there.^[172] The Byzantines never forgot that outrage.

These were the chief causes of Eastern ill-feeling against Rome. Its results are seen long before the actual schism. Never was it shown more plainly than in 691 at the Quinisextum. The first four councils had drawn up, not only dogmatic decrees, but also Canons about Church discipline. There were no Canons of the 5th (553) and 6th (680). The Emperor Justinian II (685–695) thought that this omission should be made good. So in 692 he summoned a council to draw up Canons, as a supplement to the last two general synods. The bishops met under the same cupola in the Palace at Constantinople as the Synod of 680. So this council is called the second council in Trullo.^[173] As it was intended to complete the fifth and sixth general councils it is also called Concilium Quinisextum (Σύνοδος πενθέκτη), the "Fifth-Sixth." There were 211 bishops present, all Easterns. But one Basil of Gortyna in Crete belonged to the Roman Patriarchate (Illyricum), and he called himself Papal Legate. There is no evidence of his having received any commission from Rome. The council drew up 102 Canons, no dogmatic definition. Many of these Canons only repeat, word for word, older laws; but most of the new ones show open hostility to Rome. These bishops, claiming to form an œcumenical synod, want to make the whole Christian world conform to the uses of Constantinople. Everything the Armenians do that is not done by the Byzantines is condemned;^[174] but especially are all Latin customs anathematized. Latins fasted in those days on Saturday, so that is forbidden;^[175] they only receive fifty of the so-called Apostolic Canons, so Trullanum II insists on all eighty-five of them.^[176] Every little detail of difference is remembered to be condemned.^[177] Of course the old claim of the See of Constantinople to have "like honour" with Old Rome and Canon 3 of Constantinople, Canon 28 of Chalcedon are again brought forward.^[178] Pope Honorius is cheerfully condemned as a heretic.^[179] Marriage with a heretic is invalid, because Rome says it is only unlawful.^[180] But the most astonishing instance of the intolerance of the Greek bishops is their treatment of celibacy. In this point, as in the matter of fasting on Saturday, unleavened bread and so on, the Roman Church had never attempted to force her own customs on the Easterns. Each side had in these matters of discipline followed its own development without any breach of unity or friendship. The Latin Church had the law of celibacy for all her clerks in Holy Orders; she had never complained of the laxer Eastern rule. But now these Easterns want to excommunicate us for our greater strictness. All clerks except bishops may continue in wedlock, and any one who tries to separate a priest or deacon from his wife, any clerk who leaves his wife because he is ordained, shall be excommunicate.^[181] We must remember that these bishops mean to legislate for the whole Church.^[182] Most astonishing of all is the fact that they then tried to get the Pope's signature to their Canons. Pope Sergius I (687–701) of course refused; John VII (705–707) sent back the copy they wanted him to sign;^[183] the place left at the head of the signatures for the Pope's name has always remained a blank. The Orthodox Eastern Church accepts this council as œcumenical, and adds its Canons to the decrees of the fifth and sixth councils. The West has always refused to acknowledge it. St. Bede calls it the reprobate synod, Paul the Deacon, erratic;^[184] it interests us here as an example of Eastern ill-feeling towards Rome and the Latins.

It was not the only example. When Maurus of Ravenna in 666 has the insolence to pretend to excommunicate his Patriarch (Pope Vitalian, 657–672), the Emperor Constans II (641–668) publishes a decree in support of the rebel, and affects to determine that the See of Ravenna shall in future always be independent of the Roman Patriarchate.^[185] The Byzantines never cease making the most of Pope Honorius's case, till at last they persuade themselves that he, whose fault in any case only consisted in seeming to accept what their Patriarch, Sergius, had written, had been the original author and founder of the whole Monothelite heresy. From the time of his death in 638 till the sixth general council in 680 they admit the name of no Pope to their diptychs. In 649 Paul II of Constantinople (641–654) goes into the residence of the Roman Apocrisarius, sees a Latin altar there, and, in spite of the universal law by which an embassy is extra-territorial, has it overturned and destroyed.^[186]

Lastly, long before the great schism broke out, the Byzantine bishops had become accustomed to a number of schisms against Rome, each of which was indeed eventually healed up, but each of which helped to weaken their sense of the need of union. The number of years during which the See of Constantinople was in schism from 323 to Photius's usurpation in 852, if added up, is a formidable one. This is the list: 55 years during the Arian troubles (343–398), 11 years because of St. John Chrysostom's deposition (404–415), 35 years during the Acacian schism (484–519, p. 84), 41 years because of Monothelitism (640–681), 61 years because of Iconoclasm (726–787). Altogether 203 years out of 529.^[187] And in every one of these cases Constantinople was on the wrong or heretical side; in every one Eastern and Western Christians now agree that Rome was right. Such continual breaches must gradually weaken the bond.

From all this then we see that, in spite of her acknowledgement of the Roman Primacy, the Byzantine Church, long before the schism, had entertained unfriendly feelings towards Latins; when the schism did come, it happened because the time was only too ripe for it. The troubles of the 9th and the 11th centuries cut Christendom in half along a line that jealousies, misunderstandings, quarrels of all kinds had already long marked out.

 

Summary.

In this chapter we have considered the relations between Rome and the Eastern Churches. We have seen, first of all, that those Churches acknowledged the Primacy during the first eight centuries. The great Greek Fathers believed that St. Peter was the foundation of the Church, the chief of the Apostles, that he always lives and reigns in his successors the Bishops of Rome, that therefore the Roman See is the foundation of all sees, that her bishops are the chiefs of all bishops. This same conviction lasted through the Byzantine period (since Justinian, 527) till the schism. The Eastern Churches acknowledged the Pope as the highest judge and his see as the last court of appeal in their affairs too; their bishops constantly used this right of appealing to Rome. The Pope's Primacy is confirmed by all the councils that Catholics and Orthodox agree in considering œcumenical, except by the two that were irregular in everything but the papal confirmation. On the other hand we have seen that there were causes of friction and ill-feeling between East and West long before the final schism broke out. Eastern Christians had never stood in quite so close a relation to the Pope as his own Latins. The ambition of Constantinople was a continual source of dispute, and the Popes were not always wise in their relations to the East. The ill-feeling is shown in many ways, chiefly at the Quinisextum Synod, and by the fact that the Byzantine Church had already been many times in schism before Photius.

 

1. Suffragan is not really the right word. Metropolitans have suffragans. There is no technical name to express the relation of a bishop to his patriarch. In any case, one should never call an auxiliary bishop a suffragan.
2. Hom. 5 in Exod. 4. M.P.G. xii. 329.
3. H.E. vi. 25.
4. Adv. Eunom. M.P.G. xxix. 579.
5. Bochūra (Bachr, to examine). This is the word he uses for bishop, otherwise they can only say "Efisqaufa."
6. Sermo de pass. et resur. 4, i; Lamy, i. 412.
7. De Sac. II. i. M.P.G. xlviii. 631.
8. Hom. 88 in Joh. i. p. 478.
9. De Poen. hom. iii. 4, 298.
10. De 10,000 tal. deb. 3, 20.
11. Hom. in Hoc scitote, 275.
12. Or. 32, de mod. in disp. 18, p. 194.
13. Laud. II. S. Steph. p. 734; De Castig. p. 311.
14. Hæres. 59, p. 1030.
15. In Mt. 16, 18, p. 423.
16. Menaion, Jan. 16th (St. Peter's Chains) in the Hesperinon.
17. Cf. Nilles: Kalendarium manuale, i. 72, 193, 194. For further examples see Échos d'Orient, i. 307–309: Les titres glorieux de l'Apôtre Saint Pierre dans l'hymnographie grecque.
18. H.E. iii. 4.
19. Ibid. v. 28.
20. Hær. 27, n. 6.
21. Hardouin, iii. 1422.
22. So St. Gregory the Great, L. 7, Ep. 40, M.P.L. lxxvii. 898.
23. Card. Pitra: Hymnographie de l'Église grecque, Rome, 1867, p. cxx.
24. Menaion for June (Venice, 1895), Sticharon for June 30th, p. 119.
25. De Sac. ii. i, M.P.G. xlviii. 632.
26. Ep. 70, ad Dam. M.P.G. xxxii.
27. Ep. 69, ad Athan. I, ibid. 432.
28. H.E. iii. 8. M.P.G. lxvii. 1052.
29. Ep. ad Eutychen, 2.
30. Theodoret of Cyrus was for a time suspect of Nestorianism, and his writings were condemned by the fifth general council (it was the second of Justinian's Three Chapters), see pp. 82, 83.
31. Ep. 113, ad Leon. M. M.P.G. lxxxiii. 1312, seq.
32. Liberati Breviarium, M.P.L. lxviii. 22.
33. Constans II, 641–668.
34. Menaion for April 13th (Venice, 1895), pp. 45–49. Nilles, Kal. I, 137, 138.
35. Nilles, o.c. I, 121.
36. H.E. vi. 22. M.P.G. Ixvii. 1348.
37. Sermo 131.
38. Ep. II. M.P.G. l. 447.
39. Hardouin, i. 1323.
40. L.c. Theodoreti.
41. Ep. v. n. 1. M.P.L. lxvii. 911.
42. Ibid. 64.
43. Mansi, x. 914.
44. His life in Combefis and M.P.G. xc. 68, seq.
45. Ep. Romæ scripta, ii. 72, ap. Combefis, l.c.
46. Ep. ad Petrum Illust. M.P.G. xci. 144.
47. Ep. ad Const. III.
48. Cod. Theod. xvi. Tit. i. leg. 2.
49. Theodoret, H.E. v. 2, M.P.G. lxxxii. 1197.
50. Const. III, ad Leonem II, M.P.L. xcvi. 701.
51. Mansi, viii. 795, 845, 847.
52. Cod. i. 1, 8.
53. Lib. Pont. i. 297–299
54. Mansi, ix. 367.
55. They refer to the Council of Sardica in 343, see p. 68.
56. Mansi, x. 920, 921.
57. Mansi, x. 896.
58. Ibid. x. 893.
59. M.P.G. xc 193, 197, 202.
60. Vita I. Steph. Iun. M.P.G. C. 1144.
61. Pitra: Iuris eccl. Græc. hist. Rome, 1864, 1868, vol. ii. 305.
62. Cf., for instance, Pargoire: L'Église byzantine, pp. 44, seq., 189, seq., 289, seq.
63. M.P.G. xcix. 1153.
64. Ep. 33, ad Leonem III, ibid. 1017.
65. Ibid. 1152.
66. The Sacellarius is the officer of the Patriarch's court who has to inspect and defend the monasteries. Σακελλάριος, from Sacellum, is one of the many Byzantine words derived from Latin.
67. M.P.G. xcix. 1420.
68. Ibid. 1332.
69. Ibid. 1281.
70. M.P.G. xcix. 1020.
71. Ibid. 1309.
72. Eus. H.E. iv. 1.
73. Ibid. v. 24.
74. Eus. l.c.: the text of the letter is there. Cf. Hier. de vir. ill. 35.
75. Athanasius de sent. Dion. n. 13.
76. Hier. ep. 127 (al. 16), n. 5.
77. Theodoret: H.E. ii. 3. M.P.G. lxxxii. 996.
78. Ep. 3 Jul. ad. Eus. 22, quoted by St. Athanasius, Apol. c. Arianos, 21–36.
79. Dial. Palladii de vita Chrys. ii. M.P.G. xlvii. 8–12 (his letter to Innocent is there).
80. Ep. Innoc. I. 5.
81. Ep. 19.
82. Socr. H.E. vii. 36. M.P.G. Ixvii. 820. However, Greece was in Illyricum, part of his own patriarchate.
83. Ep. iii. Coel. M.P.L. l. 427.
84. Hier. Ep. 123, 10.
85. Theod. ad Leonem I, 113, M.P.G. lxxxiii. 13 16. This letter is the one from which the extract quoted (p. 56) is also taken.
86. Ep. 116, Theodoreti, ad Renatum, M.P.G. lxxxiii. 1324.
87. Mansi, vi. 590: "Let the most reverend Bishop Theodoret be admitted because the most holy Archbishop Leo has restored his bishopric to him."
88. Lib. Brev. xii. M.P.L. lxviii. 1006.
89. Val. ad Theod. among St. Leo's letters, 55. Flavian's letter of appeal itself has been found lately. Cf. Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie (Innsbruck), 1883, pp. 193, seq.
90. Ep. 10, Gelas. 5.
91. Ep. 26, 5, ad eppos Dardaniæ, M.P.L. cxxxvi. 251.
92. Ep. 19, ed. Thiel. an. 517.
93. Op. Maximi Conf. M.P.G. xci. 353.
94. Mansi, x. 821, 900.
95. Ibid. 805, seq.; 825–832.
96. Ibid. xii. 959.
97. Cf. Echos d'Orient, vi. pp. 30–42, 118–125, 249–257: Les appels au Pape dans l'Église grecque jusqu'à Photius.
98. Although they always speak of the seven synods, the Church of the Seven Synods and so on, they often call the Council of 879 the eighth œcumenical synod, see p. 156.
99. This view (which has been disputed by some Catholic theologians) is that of Cardinal Bellarmin (de Concilius et Ecclesia, 2, ii) and of F. X. Funk, in his Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, vol. i. pp. 87–121.
100. Cecilian of Carthage, Nicasius from Gaul, Mark from Calabria, Hosius of Cordova.
101. That is, summoned as an œcumenical synod. Of course the Pope has often as Bishop of Rome or Metropolitan of his own province summoned a diocesan or provincial synod.
102. The Sanatio in radice of invalid marriages is a parallel. Charles II of England confirmed most of the acts of the Long Parliament.
103. The Council of Constance (1414–1418) in its first thirteen sessions was a schismatical assembly, from the fourteenth to the forty-first a legitimate provincial synod, from the forty-second to the forty-fifth the sixteenth œcumenical council.
104. Eusebius: Vita Const. iii. 6; Socrates, H.E. i. 8; Sozomen, H.E. i. 17; Theodoret, H.E. i. 7; Rufin. i. 1.
105. Socrates, H.E. i. 9.
106. Actio 18. Hardouin, iii. 1417.
107. "Factum est concilium cum eius (Sylvestri) præceptum (sic) in Nicea Bithiniæ (aliter: cum eius consensu)." Duchesne: Lib. Pont. (Paris, 1886), i. 171.
108. Eus. Vita Const. iii. 13.
109. Mansi, ii. 692, 697, 882, 927.
110. Ibid. 882, 927.
111. Mansi, ii. 806. M.P.G. lxxxv. 1179, seq. But Gelasius is no great authority.
112. It is uncertain how Pope Liberius (352–366) fell. He was at first a steadfast defender of the Creed of Nicæa, but after a long banishment he seems to have somehow given way to the semi-Arians, and he was then allowed by the Emperor (Constantius) to come back to Rome. Perhaps he accepted an ambiguous formula (the third Sirmian form), Rufin says that he does not know whether he gave way at all (H.E. i. 27. M.P.L. xxi. 493). In any case there is no question of a definition ex cathedra, and all theologians agree that a Pope may be guilty of a private heretical opinion. B. Jungmann has discussed the whole case in his Dissertationes selectæ in historiam ecclesiasticam, ii. pp. 46, seq. See also Hefele: Conc.-Gesch. (ed. 2), i. pp. 685, 696.
113. Funk: K.-G. Abhandl. 94–99.
114. Hard. i. 1354.
115. Theodos. II, Edict. and Epist. Mansi, iv. 1109, 1111, 1118.
116. The acts of the council formally declare Cyril to be the Pope's Legate: "The Alexandrine Cyril, who also holds the place of Celestine, the most holy and most blessed Archbishop of the Church of the Romans … being present" (Mansi, iv. 1280). Philip is also called "priest and legate of the Apostolic See," and Arcadius and Projectus are "the most pious and Godbeloved bishops and legates" (ibid. 1281).
117. Coel. ep. 16-19. Mansi, iv. 1292.
118. Ep. Coelest. cit.
119. Ep. cit.
120. On July 10th, at the beginning of the second session.
121. Hard. i. 1478.
122. Mansi, iv. 1279, 1303, 1391, 1427; v. 602, 686.
123. Hard. i. 1709.
124. Leonis I, Ep. 44, 3. M.P.L. liv. 826.
125. Ep. 73. M.P.L. liv. 899.
126. Ep. 83, 2. Ibid. 920.
127. He was Bishop of Lilybæum in Sicily. Attila and his Huns were then ravaging Italy. They came to the gates of Rome the year after the council 452.
128. Ep. 89. M.P.L. liv. 930.
129. Ep. 114, I. Ibid. 1029.
130. Mansi, vi. 566, &c., passim.
131. Τροῦλλος is a late Greek word for a hollow vessel, then for a tortoiseshell and lastly for a dome or cupola. Trullus also occurs in late Latin. The second council in Trullo was not œcumenical, see p. 92, n. 2.
132. Mansi, xi. 195–736, 738–922. Hard. iii. 1043, seq.
133. Hard. iii. 1043.
134. Hard. iii. 1074.
135. Mansi, l.c.
136. Hard. iii. 1422, seq.
137. Mansi, xi. 683.
138. Hard. iii. 1631–1633.
139. Mansi, xi. 1050, M.P.L. xcvii, 414.
140. The famous Honorius question does not sufficiently concern the Eastern Churches to warrant a longer discussion of it here. Apart from the statement made by this council, it is quite certain that he did not define Monothelitism ex cathedra. Cf., for instance, Jungmann: Dissert. hist. ii. pp. 385, seq.
141. Hard. iv. 455–470, 995.
142. Ibid. 162, 510.
143. Ibid. 82, 94.
144. Ibid. 819.
145. t is doubtful whether the Creed really was drawn up by this council (p. 383, n. 3).
146. Can. 11, 12, 13, 14.
147. For the history of the Three Chapters and of the Second Council of Constantinople see Liberatus: Breviarium Causæ Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum (M.P.L. Ixviii.). The Acts of the council are in Mansi, ix. 163.
148. Thiel, Ep. Rom. Pont. 709, 759.
149. Thiel, l.c. Ep. 19, p. 780.
150. Ep. 26, p. 793.
151. Ep. 46, p. 835; Ep. 59, 60, p. 850, seq.; Ep. 61, 65, 75, pp. 852, 859, 868.
152. Mansi, viii. 436, 502, 518, 1029, 1065. See also the whole story in Liberatus: Breviarium, l.c. c. 19.
153. "Si non vultis facere, venimus, salutavimus vos, perambulamus," Ep. 49, Thiel, l.c.
154. = Condition of salvation.
155. "Rerum probantur effectibus."
156. See p. 14. He is only called a parricide because he was a Monophysite.
157. Denzinger, xx. n. 141. The text of Hormisdas's formula often recurs in Acts of councils and letters: cf. e. gr. Deusdedit: Coll. Canonum, i. 112, pp. 89, 90, &c.
158. Ep. 15, ad Damasum.
159. An example of this is the correspondence between St. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine of Canterbury.
160. Theodore I (642–649) was a Greek from Jerusalem, St. Agatho (678–681), a Sicilian Greek, John V (685–686), a Syrian. The last Greek Pope was a Cretan, Alexander V (Peter Philargios, 1409–1410), set up by the Synod of Pisa. He is counted among the Alexanders, but was really an anti-pope. Gregory XII (1406–1415) was the legitimate Pope.
161. M.P.G. x. 963, seq.
162. Will: Acta et Scripta de controv. eccl. lat. et græcæ, p. 204.
163. See Duchesne: Églises séparées, pp. 182–186.
164. Not to be confused with he schism of Meletius of Lycopolis in Egypt (c. 306).
165. Now Cagliari in Sardinia.
166. For all this story see Socrates: H.E. ii. 43; iii. 9, 25; v. 5, 9, 15. Sozomenos: H.E. iv. 25; vii. 3, 10, seq.; viii. 3. Theodoret: H.E. iii. 2, 8; V. 23, 25.
167. St. Basil, Ep. 131, 2; 224, 2 (M.P.G. xxxii. 568, 836, seq.).
168. Cf. Duchesne: Églises séparées, pp. 85, seq.
169. De schism. Don. iii. 3.
170. St. Ambrose (340–397) continually reckons the defeat of the legions as a victory of Satan over the cause of Christ (e.g., de fide, xvi. 136, seq.). When his brother Satyrus died he said: "He was taken away lest he see the overthrow of the whole earth and the end of the world" (de excessu Sat. 30)—Gratian has just been killed. Dante's de Monarchia is the classical apology for this position.
171. ῥήξ τῶν φράγκων. Ῥήξ is Rex. They would not call him βασιλέυς, because they called the Emperor so, and had come to look upon the word as equal to Imperator. Luitprand: Legatio in Pertz, Mon. Germ. III, p. 347. Here is an example of their feelings on this subject: they say to Luitprand, Archbishop of Cremona, who went on an embassy to Constantinople in 968: "But the mad and silly Pope does not know that St. Constantine transferred the Imperial sceptre, all the Senate and the whole Roman army hither, and that at Rome he left only vile creatures such as fishermen, pastrycooks, birdcatchers, bastards, plebeians, and slaves" (op. c. p. 358).
172. See p. 225.
173. Trullanum II; when the council in Trullo is mentioned alone without a number, this one (692) is generally meant.
174. Can. 32, 33, 56, 99.
175. C. 55.
176. C. 2.
177. E. gr. c. 67, 82.
178. C. 36.
179. C. 1.
180. C. 72.
181. C. 3, 6, 12, 13, 48.
182. The whole story of the Quinisextum with its Canons is in Mansi, xi. 930, seq.
183. Lib. Pont. i, 385, 386.
184. Beda: de vi mundi ætate, Paul Diac.: Hist. Langob. vi, p. 11. Intolerance of all other customs and the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church; see pp. 153, 178, 191, 399, 436.
185. Monum. Germ. hist. Script. Langob. pp. 350, 351.
186. Mansi, x, 880.
187. Duchesne: Égl. sép. p. 163.