Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Réné-Francois Guettée - The Papacy - part four
This is why
the metropolitans of
Cyprus styled themselves
as before aftoképhali
(independent) and did not recognize the jurisdiction of any
superior bishop. The Bishop of Jerusalem was likewise acephalous, or without chief, according to the seventh canon of the
Nicene Council, and he retained the ancient honour of his see.
Thus Leo was right
to pronounce in favour of respect for canons; but he was
wrong in placing disciplinary canons in the same rank with dogmatic definitions. In fact, the first may
be modified when grave reasons
demand it, nay, should be modified, sometimes, in the letter,
if it be desired to preserve them in spirit;
while definitions of faith should never be modified as to the letter, much less as to the spirit.
The canons of the first œcumenical councils throw
incontestably strong light upon the prerogatives of the
Bishop of Rome. They are the complement to each other. The twenty-
* Works of
St. Avitus, in the miscellaneous works of P. Sirmond.
† St.
Leo, Epis. xcii. Labbe, Collec.
of Councils.
Cabassut.
Not.
Eccl. p. 209.
eighth canon of Chalcedon contains nothing less than the doctrine
we defend, even though
the opposition of the West, in the person
of the Bishop of Rome, should
strip it of its œcumenical character as certain theologians maintain; for
it is well to notice that St. Leo did
not protest against it as opposed to the divine and universal
authority of the see of
Rome, for which he only claimed an ecclesiastical primacy, but simply because it infringed
upon the sixth canon of Nicea,
in brining down
the Bishop of Alexandria to the third rank of the episcopate, and the Bishop
of Antioch to the fourth.
It is, therefore, incontestable that at that period the Bishop of Rome did not possess universal authority in the Church by divine right.
This is still more evident, from the part that the bishops
of Rome took in the councils.
One fact is certain, that they did not convoke the first four œcumenical councils, that they did not
preside over them, that they did not confirm
them
We will prove this for
each of the Councils.
Here is what Eusebius
relates of the convocation, presidence, and confirmation of the
First Œcumenical council of Nicea*
Constantine declared
that he must prosecute to the utmost this war against the secret
adversary who was disturbing the peace
of the Church.
Resolved, therefore, to bring as it
were a divine array against this enemy, he convoked a general council, and invited the speedy attendance of bishops from all quarters in letters
expressive of the honorable estimation in which he held them. Nor was
this merely the issuing of a bare command, but the Emperor’s condescension contributed much to its being carried into effect: "For
he allowed some the use
of the public means of conveyance, while
he afforded to others an ample supply of horses
for their transport. The place, too, selected for the synod, the city of
Nicea in Bithynia (which
derived its name from Victory) was appropriate to the occasion. As soon, then, as the imperial
injunction was generally made known, all with the utmost
celerity hastened to obey it.”............... “The number of
bishops exceeded two hundred and fifty, while
that of the presbyters and deacons in their train, and
the crowd of acolytes and other attendants was altogether beyond computation.
“Of these ministers
of God some were very distinguished by wisdom and eloquence, others by the gravity of their
lives and by patient fortitude of character, while others
again united in themselves all these graces.
There were among them men whose
years demanded the tribute of respect and veneration. Others were younger, and in the prime of bodily
and mental vigor;
and some had but recently entered
on the course of their
ministry. For the maintenance of all a sumptuous provision was daily furnished by the Emperor's command.
“Now when the appointed day arrived on which the council met for the
final solution of the question
in dispute each member attended to deliver his judgment in ,the central building of the palace.
On each side of
the interior of this were many seats disposed in order,
which were occupied by those who had
been invited to attend, according to their rank. As
soon, then, as the whole assembly had seated
themselves with becoming gravity,
a general silence prevailed
in expectation of the
Emperor's arrival. And first of all, three of his immediate family entered in succession, and others also preceded
his approach, not of
the soldiers or guards who usually accompanied him, but only friends, who avowed the faith of Christ. And now all rising at the signal
which indicated
the Emperor's entrance, at last he himself proceeded through the midst of the
assembly like some heavenly messenger of God. .
. . As soon as he had advanced
to the upper end of the
seats, at first he remained
standing, and when a low chair of wrought gold had been set for him, he waited until the bishops had beckoned to him, and then sat down, and after him the whole assembly did the same.
* Euseb. Life of Constantine , Book III. chap. v. et seq.
“The bishop who occupied the chief place in the right division
of the assembly then rose, and, addressing the Emperor,
delivered a concise
speech."
This account shows that it was the Emperor who convoked the council,
and gave formal orders to that effect,
and that he occupied the place of president in the assembly. Doubtless
he had no ecclesiastical right to convoke this council; yet while the direct intervention of the
emperors in the convocation of councils in the first centuries does not
prove that they had any ecclesiastical rights, it proves, at least, that the Church did not then possess any central
power that could call all the bishops
together. Otherwise the Christian emperors
would have addressed that authority, and every thing
undertaken by them without
that authority would have been null and void.
The bishop who occupied the highest place in the Nicene Council
had only the first place on the right of the Emperor. Constantine was
placed in the middle, at the end of
the hall, and upon a separate seat. What bishop
occupied the first place, Eusebius does not
say; which leads one to think it was
himself. The historian Socrates
maintains, in fact, that it was
really Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine. This bishopric was one
of the most important of the
East, and the first in Palestine since the destruction of Jerusalem.
In the commencement of
his Life of Constantine, Eusebius thus expresses himself: ,I myself have recently
addressed eulogies to the victorious prince, seated in the assembly of
God's ministers." If
these words are not a demonstrative proof, they nevertheless give great probability to the statement of Socrates.
But whether it be Eusebius
of Cæsarea, or Eustathius of Antioch, as
Theodoret affirms,* or Alexander of Alexandria, as
Niectas† maintains,
after Theodore of Mopsuestia, is of small account. Thus much
is certain, that the envoys
of the Roman Bishop did not preside. This is a fact admitted by
all historians worthy of credence. We must come down to
Gelasius of Cyzieus to learn that the Bishop of
Rome
presided at the Council
of Nicea in the person
of Hosius of Cordova, his deputy.
In the first place, Hosius
was not the delegate of the Bishop
of Rome ; he takes this title neither in the Acts of the Council nor
elsewhere. The Bishop of
Rome was only
represented by
the priests Vitus and Vincent, and not by Hosius. Thus, even if Hosius
had presided over the Council,
this fact would prove nothing
in favour of the pretended authority. But it is certain
that Hosius had not that honour,
and that the ecclesiastical presidence
of the assembly was in
the Bishops of the
great Sees of Alexandria,
Antioch, and Cæsarea of Palestine, while the Emperor himself had the civil presidency.
After having heard
the eulogies of
the first bishop of the assembly, Constantine made an address
in which he said that he had convoked all the bishops to labor for peace, and he entreated them to secure it to the Christian world.
When he had finished, he invited the
PRESIDENTS OF THE COUNCIL to speak. There were, therefore, several
presidents. With this declaration before us of
Eusebius,* who was an eye-witness--a declaration that nothing
contradicts--can it reasonably be contended that the Council
was presided over by the
Bishop of Rome, in the person of Hosius his proxy?
What fact can authorize such an
assertion, diametrically
opposed to the authoritative and positive testimony of
Eusebius?
This learned historian
has accurately traced the functions of Constantine. From the time the bishops took the floor, animated discussions arose. " The Emperor,” continues Eusebius,† "gave patient audience to all alike and received
every proposition with steadfast
attention, and by occasionally assisting
the argument of each party
in turn, he gradually
disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconciliation. At the same time, by the
* Theodoret,
Hist. Eccl. Book I. ch. vii.
† Nicet. Thesaur. fid orthodox,
Book V. ch. vii.
* Euseb. Life of
Constantine , Book
III. chap. xiii.
† Ibid.
affability of
his address to all, and his use of the
Greek language, (with
which he was, not
altogether unacquainted,) he appeared in a truly attractive and amiable light, persuading some, convincing others
by his reasonings, praising those who
spoke well, and urging
all to unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded
in bringing them to one mind and judgment
respecting every disputed
question."
“CONSTANTINUS AUGUSTUS TO THE CHURCHES:
“Having had full proof in
the general prosperity of the empire, how
great the favour of God has been toward us, I have judged that it ought
to be the first object of
my endeavours, that unity of faith, sincerity of love, and community of feeling in regard to the
worship of Almighty God, might be preserved among the highly favored
multitude who
compose the Catholic Church: and inasmuch as this object
could not be effectually
and certainly secured, unless
all, or at least the greater number of the
bishops were to meet together, and a discussion of all particulars relating to our most
holy religion to take place; for this reason as numerous an assembly as possible has been
convened, at which I
myself was present, as one
among yourselves, (and far be it from me to deny that which is my greatest joy, that I am your fellow-servant,) and every question received
due and full examination,
until that judgment which God, who
sees all things, could approve,
and which tended to unity and concord, was brought to light, so that
no room was left for further discussion or controversy in relation to the faith."
After this preamble, which is of itself significant, Constantine publishes the decree
of the Council, upon the
celebration of Easter.
He explains the reasons for it and recommends
its observance. Before dismissing,
the bishops, Constantine again addressed them, exhorting them to maintain peace among themselves. He particularly recommends "those in high places not to raise
themselves above their inferiors in rank; for," he adds, "it belongs to God
only to judge the virtue
and superiority of
each one."§ He gave them some further
advice, and then permitted them to return to their churches. They all withdrew
joyfully, ascribing
to the intervention of the
Emperor the peace that had been established between those
who had differed in opinion.
In respect to the most serious
question that had been discussed in the Council--that of Arianism--Constantine wrote of it
to Egypt, where the discussion had birth, “confirming,”
writes Eusebius, "and sanctioning the decrees of the
Council on this subject.*
Thus nothing is wanting in the intervention of Constantine at Nicea. It is he who
convokes the Council,
he who presides, and he who confirms
the decrees. Eusebius,
a contemporaneous historian, an eye-witness of the events,
who took part in the Council, positively asserts
it; while subsequent historians, all worthy of confidence--Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret--bear witness to the fidelity of his
recital.
Gelasius of Cyzicus, author of a romance founded
upon the Council of Nicea,
who lived in the fifth century, is the first,
as we have said, to make mention of
the Bishop of Rome in the convocation and presidency of the Council
of Nicea. His mistake was propagated in the East,
and the sixth
general council
in the seventh century did not protest
‡ Life of Constantine, Bood III. ch. xvi. and xvii.
§ Euseb. Life of
Constantine , Book
III. ch. xxi.
* Euseb. Life of
Constantine , Book
III. ch. xxiii.
against it when uttered in its presence. But it will be admitted that the erroneous assertion
of a writer who entirely contradicts history and the clearest
traditions, cannot be received as truth
because a council held at a much later period did not protest
against it, when, even had it
been competent, it was
not called to pronounce upon that question. It is not possible, then, honestly to oppose such proofs to the multiplied
evidences of contemporaneous
writers, and to that of
the Council itself, which, in its letters, never speaks
of the intervention of the Bishop of Rome.
It is certain that Constantine did not claim
any ecclesiastical rights for himself; that he only presided
at the Council in order to assure liberty
of discussion, and that he left the
decisions to episcopal judgment. But it is nevertheless true that he convoked the Council,
that he presided, that he confirmed its decrees; that under him there were several bishops
presidents; that the delegates of the Bishop of Rome did not preside;
that Hosius, who the first signed the acts of
the Council, was not the delegate of the
Bishop of Rome, whatever
Gelasius of Cyzicus may say,
whose testimony is worth
nothing, even by the avowal of the most learned of the Roman theologians.†
What now was
the intervention of the
Bishop of Rome in the second œcumenical council? Nothing.
The Council was convoked by the Emperor
Theodosius, (A.D. 381,) who
did not even ask the opinion of the
Bishop of Rome. That Bishop, Damasus, did not even send
legates to it, nor did any other western
bishop take part in it. The Council
was composed of one
hundred and fifty members, among whom we
distinguish such men as St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of
Nyssa, St. Peter of Sebaste, St. Amphilochius of Iconium, and St.
Cyril of Jerusalem. It was
presided over by St. Meletius
of Antioch.
For a long time there had been a schism
at Antioch. That city had two
bishops, Meletius and Paulinus. The Bishop of Rome was
in communion with the latter, and consequently regarded Meletius as schismatic, which nevertheless did not prevent
his being
regarded as
a saint by the Western churches
as well as those in the East.
The second
œcumenical-council was therefore under the presidency of a bishop who was not in communion with Rome . Meletius
died during the sitting
of the council. Those who
were
well known
for eloquence among the Fathers
pronounced his eulogy. There remains only the discourse of St. Gregory of
Nyssa. The faithful vied with each other in lavishing
marks of their veneration for the
holy Bishop of Antioch; he was regarded by all as
a Saint, and when his body was transported to Antioch the journey was an
uninterrupted ovation.
After the death of St.
Meletius, St. Gregory
Nazianzen presided. The assembly did not
recognize Paulinus as the
legitimate Bishop of Antioch, although he was in communion with the Bishop of Rome,
and they paid no
heed to a compromise, by
the terms of which the
survivor Meletius or Paulinus was to
be recognized as bishop by all
the Catholics. They accordingly chose St. Flavianus to succeed Meletius,
and, excepting the partisans
of Paulinus, the Church
of Antioch supported
this choice.
St. Gregory Nazianzen having, obtained
permission to resign his see of Constantinople, was succeeded as president of
the council, successively by Timothy of Alexandria and Nectarius of Constantinople. These presidents had no
relations with the Bishop of Rome.
† See the judgement
given by the Jesuit Feller upon this historian: “A
Greek author
of
the fifth century,
who
wrote the History of the Nicene Council, held in 325. This history is only a novel in the opinion
of the best critics--at least, in many respects,
he
is a variance with the documents and relations most worthy of
belief.”
Like a good Ultramontane, Feller affirms that
Gelasius had excellent motives, and it
is this which has made him embellish his history a little.
Thus, according to
Feller, Gelasius has lied, but his falsehoods are excusable
because of his intentions, and because
his motives were good. Feller was faithful
to the spirit of
his Company.
Nevertheless the council
enacted important dogmatic
decrees, and its decisions mingled with those of the Council of Nicea
in the formula of the creed; moreover, it changed
the order of the ecclesiastical hierarchy by giving to the Bishop
of Constantinople the second place in the Church,
and by placing after him the Bishops
of Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem. It enacted besides
a great number of disciplinary canons which were adopted by the
whole Church.*
The year following
the Council of Constantinople, the Emperor Gratianus assembled
another at Rome. Paulinus of Antioch was there. He was
there sustained in his opposition to St. Flavianus, who was nevertheless recognized as the legitimate bishop by the
majority of
the provinces that depended upon the
patriarchate. The West had raised
an outcry against
the
East, for
having on decided important matters without
the concurrence of the
West. But aside from the legitimacy of
Flavianus, all the other
acts of the Council were now
concurred in, and the Council of
Constantinople was universally considered as œcumenical, although neither convoked, nor presided over, nor yet confirmed by the
Bishop of Rome.
In view of such facts, what becomes of
the pretensions of the
Bishop of Rome to an absolute autocracy in the Church? He claims, today,
that all jurisdiction comes from him, and here is a council
presided by a holy bishop with whom Rome is not in communion
promulgating
dogmatic and the most important disciplinarian decrees; and this council is one of those which St. Gregory the Great revered as one
of the four gospels.†
The third œcumenical council held at Ephesus (431) was convoked by the Emperor
Theodosius II. and his colleague; both of
them signed the letter of convocation addressed, as was
customary, to the metropolitan of each province.
"The troubles of the Church," they say,‡ "have made us think
it indispensable
to convoke the bishops of
the whole world. In consequence, your Holiness will make arrangements to present yourself at Ephesus, at the
Pentecost, and to bring with you
such of the bishops as your Holiness may judge
convenient," etc.
We read in the acts of the
council that St. Cyril was
the first, as occupying the place of Celestine, Bishop
of Rome; but as
Fleury remarks,§ “He might as
well have presided by right of the
dignity of his see." This reflection is quite just. Nevertheless, since the second œcumenical council had given the second
place in the episcopate to the Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius might have disputed
the presidency of the
assembly with his
antagonist, Cyril. Cyril
had, therefore, a good
reason to come to an understanding with Celestine, Bishop of Rome, in order that the heretic
they had assembled to condemn should not
preside over them.
We can thus understand why the Bishop of Alexandria thought
fit to appear at the council with the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome; but it would
be wrong to conclude that he was the
legate of that bishop,
who was represented by two
Western bishops and a Roman
priest. In none of the
acts of the council
does Cyril mention his title of legate of the
Bishop of Rome; and when
the discussion was about him, he called to the chair not the delegates of the
Roman Bishop, but the Bishop of Jerusalem, who was next to him in rank, since
the Bishop of Antioch was not
at the council.
After having
read the Nicene Creed, a dogmatic letter
was read from St. Cyril to
Nestorius, and the bishops
present adopted it as
the expression of their
faith. They next read
* See the Acts
of the Council in Father Labbe’s Collection; Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates,
Sozomen,
and
Theodoret; the Works of
St. Gregory of Nyssa and of St.
Gregory Nazianzen, etc.
† See
Ecclesiastical Histories of Sozomen and of Theodoret;
the
Letters of St. Jerrome and of St. Ambrose;
the
Collection
of the Councils by Labbe.
‡ See Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria; Collection of the Councils, by Labbe. Eccl. Hist.
of Socrates.
§ Fleury, Eccl. Hist. Book XXV.
Ch xxxvii.
a letter in which Nestorius set forth his doctrine: it was
condemned. Juvenal of Jerusalem
proposed to read the letter of the
very holy Archbishop of Rome to Nestorius; then was
read the third dogmatic letter
of St. Cyril; this was
the
synodal letter with the twelve anathemas.
It was declared that the doctrine
of the Bishop of Rome and that of St.
Cyril were agreeable to the Nicene Creed.
The testimony of the fathers in the East and West was
then opposed to the errours
of Nestorius. There was read
a letter written by the
Bishop of Carthage in the name of the African bishops, who could not be present at the council,
and of whom St. Cyril
was the delegate. That was
approved. Finally the sentence was pronounced and signed by all the
bishops. St. Cyril signed thus: "Cyril, Bishop
of Alexandria, I have
subscribed, judging with the
Council." The other bishops
adopted the same form. It must be observed
that St. Cyril
did not sign as representative of the Bishop of Rome. If he had consented to use the delegated powers of Celestine, it was
simply to be prepared
in case Nestorius should have
wished to dispute his precedence. Consequently that delegation had not the importance
that Romish theologians delight
in ascribing to it.
The Bishop of Antioch had not arrived
when the condemnation of
Nestorius was pronounced. They pretended that Cyril was judge in his own cause, against the Bishop
of Constantinople. The Emperor declared
in favour of the
latter, and his party claimed that the
discussion should be reopened. It was at this time that the Bishop
of Rome sent three legates
to represent him. They were bearers of a letter which commenced thus: "The assembly of the bishops manifests the presence
of the Holy Spirit;
for a council is holy and should be venerated, as representing a numerous assembly of Apostles. They were never
abandoned by the Master
whom they were ordained to preach.
He taught by them, and told them what they
should teach,. and he declared
that it was he who was heard through
his apostles. This
charge to teach has
been transmitted to all the bishops alike, we
all possess it by right of inheritance, we all who announce in the place of the apostles, the name of
the Lord in divers countries of the
world, according to his word:
‘Go
teach all nations.’ You must observe, my
brethren, we have received a general order,
and that Jesus Christ willed we
should all execute
it in discharging this duty. We should all participate in the labors
of those to whom we have all succeeded."
A Pope writing thus to a council
was very far removed from the
theories of modern Papacy.
Celestinus letter was
approved by the assembly, which in its enthusiasm cried out, " Celestinus the new Paul! Cyril
the new Paul!
Celestinus, defender of the faith!
Celestinus, who agrees
with the council!
The whole council
renders thanks to Celestinus! Celestinus and Cyril
are one! The faith of the
council is one! It is that of the
whole earth!”
Celestine and Cyril were put in the same category as defenders of the Catholic faith. Neither had any authority except through the conformity of their
doctrine with that of
the council Instead of considering Celestine as having inherited a universal authority from St.
Peter, they compare him to St. Paul, the Doctor-Apostle.
The legates examined the Acts of the Council, and declared
that they regarded
them as canonical, “since,”
they said, “the Bishops
of the East and West have taken part in the council, in person
or by proxy.” It was not, then, because
the Bishop of Rome had directed or confirmed it.
The council, in its synodical letter
addressed to the Emperor,
relies upon the adhesion
of the Bishops of the 'West, of whom Pope Celestine
was the interpreter, to prove that its sentence against Nestorius was
canonical.
In view of these facts and this doctrine, it will be admitted that St. Cyril
might have presided at the council without
any mandate from the Pope;
that if he rejoiced
that he represented Celestine, it was only because
he thereby took precedence of Nestorius, in spite
of the canon of the
Council of Constantinople, which gave to Nestorius the first rank after the
Bishop of Rome; and that the three
deputies of the Pope did
not go to Ephesus to direct the assembly or
confirm it, but to convey
the adhesion of the Western bishops assembled in council by Celestine.
It is false, therefore, to say that the Pope presided at the council
by St. Cyril, who in such case would have been his legate. It is one thing to yield for a particular reason
the honours attached by the
Church to the title of first bishop, and quite another
to delegate the. right to preside at an œcumenical council.
The position of legate of the
Bishop of Rome did
not carry with it the right to preside, as we see
in councils where the deputies
of that bishop were present,
but did not preside. The prerogatives of first bishop delegated
to St. Cyril, gave him precedence over Nestorius-in case that heretic had chosen to insist on
presiding over the Council of Ephesus, by virtue of the
third canon of the
Council of Constantinople. The Romish theologians have,
therefore, grossly misunderstood the fact, of which
they would make a weapon
against the Catholic doctrine. They have not observed that even after
the arrival of the legates
of the Bishop of Rome at Ephesus,
when St. Cyril did not preside
at the council, it was
Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, who
had that honour. The Bishop of Antioch having taken sides with Nestorius, and not attending the assemblies,
the right to preside fell upon the Bishop of Jerusalem; since, according to the hierarchy established by the
Councils of Nicea and Constantinople,
he was fifth in order. This fact alone is strong
proof against the opinion
that attributes to the Bishop of Rome
the right to preside at councils
either in person or by proxy. Had
he been present, and if the council had had no reason for putting him on his
trial, or excluding him, he would
without doubt have presided, in virtue of his
ecclesiastical title of first Bishop; but when he
caused himself to be represented there,
his deputies had no right
to preside, and in fact never did preside. The Bishops
of Rome themselves knew so well that they had not this right,
that they oftenest
delegated simple
priests or deacons, who could not properly preside
in a council of bishops.
The Acts of the Fourth
Œcumenical Council,
held at Chalcedon in 451, are
not favourable to the Papal system, whatever
may be said by Romish theologians.
The council was convoked by
the Emperor Marcianus,* who gave notice of it to the
Bishop of Rome, St. Leo. The Empress Pulcheria also wrote to him, and said that it had pleased
the very pious Emperor,
her husband, to assemble the Eastern bishops in council, in order
to consider the necessities of the
Catholic faith. She entreats him (the Bishop
of Rome) to give his consent,
in order that its decisions may be according to rule. It was, in,
fact, just and necessary to demand the adhesion of the
West, so that the council might be (ecumenical. St. Leo replied that the doubts which had been raised
concerning the orthodox
faith made a council necessary; consequently, the Emperor Marcianus and Valentinian his colleague,
addressed letters of convocation to all the bishops.
It must be remarked that St. Leo only consented to the convocation of the council He, therefore, believed neither in his right
to convoke it, nor
to terminate the discussions himself, by virtue of his authority. His letters to Marcianus, to Pulcheria, and to the Fathers
of the council, leave no
doubt of this.
This preliminary fact is of great
importance.
Leo had requested
that the council
should take place in Italy; but the Emperor
refused this, and convoked it at Nicea and afterward Chalcedon. In nearly all its sessions the council recognizes having been convoked by the most pious Emperors, and never mentions the
Bishop of Rome in this connection. A Roman council under
Pope Gelasius, asserts that the
* All the documents
to which we refer in this account,
may be found in
Labbe’s Collection of the Councils. See also, the works
of St. Leo.
Council of
Chalcedon was assembled by
the intervention of the
Emperor Marcianus, and of Anatolius, Bishop of
Constantinople. The original conception was in fact theirs;
yet, as St. Leo consented
to it, his prerogatives as first
bishop were allowed him, as
they should have been. Consequently, he sent to Chalcedon his legates,
who were, Boniface, one of his fellow-
priests of the city of Rome--as he says in
several of his letters to Marcianus--Paschasinus,
Bishop of Sicily, Bishop
Julian, and Lucentius.
“Let the brethren," said he, in his letter
to the Fathers of the council, “believe that by
them I preside in the council.
I am present amongst you in the persons of my vicars. You know from ancient tradition
what we believe; -you cannot therefore doubt what we
wish."
As this shows, St. Leo appeals to the old traditions,
and leaves the council
to judge all questions without interposing his pretended
doctrinal authority.
But does
he use the word preside in its strictest sense ?
If we attentively examine the Transactions of the
Council, we see that the delegates of the Emperor occupied the first place;
that the assembly bad several presidents; that the
legates of the
Bishop of Rome and Anatolius of Constantinople acted simultaneously as ecclesiastical presidents.
Such
was the case in the twelfth session particularly; and
accordingly a council of Sardinia says, in a letter addressed to the Emperor Leo:* "The
Council of Chalcedon was presided over by Leo, the very holy Archbishop of Rome, in the persons of his legates,
and by the very holy and venerable Archbishop Anatolius."
Photius, in the seventh book of
The Synods, designates as presidents of the Council
Anatolius--the legates of the
Bishops of Rome, the Bishop of Antioch and the Bishop
of Jerusalem. Cedrenus,
Zonarius, and Nilus
of Rhodes relate the same thing.†
On the other hand,
in the report addressed to St. Leo by the
Fathers of the Council,
we read that the assembly was
presided over by the delegated
officers of the Emperor. We must, therefore,-admit that the Council
of Chalcedon was held under the same conditions as that of Nicea; that the civil authority
held the first place there; and that the bishops of
sees since
called patriarchal
presided together. We have no
difficulty after this in admitting that the
Bishop of
Rome
occupied the first place among the bishops
in the persons of his legates; but it
is one thing to occupy
the first place
and another thing
to preside, especially
in the sense that Romish theologians give to this word.
It is an undeniable fact that the dogmatic
letter addressed by St.
Leo to the Fathers of the
Council was there examined and approved for this reason:
that it agreed with the doctrine of Celestine and Cyril, confirmed by the
Council of Ephesus. When the two
letters of St. Cyril were read, in the second session, the " most glorious
judges” and all the assembly said: "Let there now
be read the letter of Leo,
most worthy in God,
Archbishop of Royal and Ancient Rome." At the
close of the reading the bishops exclaimed: "Such
is the faith of the Fathers; this is the faith of the Apostles! We all believe thus!
Anathema to those who do not thus believe ! Peter has spoken
by Leo. Thus taught the Apostles. Leo teaches according to piety
and truth; and thus has Cyril taught." Some of the
bishops having
raised doubts as to
the doctrine contained
in St. Leo’s letter, it was
determined that after five days, they should meet at the house
of Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople in order to confer with him, and receive further explanations if such
a commission had been given to the legates
of the Bishop of Rome, there is no
doubt that the Romish theologians would draw numerous conclusions from it in favour of
their system But the legates
were only called upon
by Anatolius to
explain certain Latin
words that seemed obscure to those who doubted and who, after the explanation of the legates, gave their adherence
with the others
to Leo's letter. All that was
* Int. act. Conc. Chalced.
† Ced. Compend. Hist; Zonar. Annal.; Nil. Rhod.
de
Synod.
done in this council in the matter of this
letter proves, in the most evident
manner, that it was not
approved as coming from a bishop having
authority, but rather because it agreed with traditional teachings.
It suffices to glance through the Transactions, to find abundant evidence of this. Some Romish theologians can see nothing but these words, “Peter has spoken by Leo," as if
that expression could have an Ultramontane sense, placed as it
is in the midst of
other exclamations, and taken
with a host of other
declarations, which give it only the
meaning we have indicated.
As those honorary
titles which are found
in the Transactions of the
Council, addressed to the Bishop of Rome, have been much abused,
we must point out their true
meaning.
St. Gregory the Great in his letters against the title of Ecumenical bishop assumed by
John the Faster, the Patriarch of Constantinople, teaches us that the Council of Chalcedon
had offered this title to the Bishop of Rome. In fact we see,
in the Transactions of the
Council, that this title was given
to him by his legates.
The first of them subscribed to the
profession of faith in the sixth session in these terms:
“Paschasinus, bishop,
vicar of his Lordship
Leo, Bishop of the
universal church, of the
city of Rome , president
of the Synod. I have ordered
consented, and signed." The other legates signed in about the same terms.
Again in the third session,
the legates in speaking of St.
Leo, said: "The holy and blessed Pope Leo, head of the universal Church, endowed with the dignity
of the Apostle Peter, who is the foundation of the Church and the rock of faith," etc., etc.
In the fourth
session, the legate Paschasinus gave also to Leo the title of Pope of the
universal Church
The Fathers of the
council saw in these expressions
nothing more than an honorary
title, which the Bishop of Rome, no doubt,
desired the better
to determine his superiority over the Bishop of Constantinople, whom the second
œcumenical council
had raised to the second
rank, and who
as bishop of the new capital of the empire must naturally gain a preponderant
influence in the affairs of the
Church, because of his
frequent relations with the emperors.
There is then every reason to believe that the council, in order to humour the jealousy
of the Bishop of Rome, accorded to him the title of
œcumenical bishop. It was
one way of causing Rome to adopt the twenty-eighth canon, of which we have
already spoken, and in which was developed that of the second
œcumenical council,
concerning the elevation of the Bishop of Constantinople to the second
rank in the episcopate. But the Bishops
of Rome, if we are to
believe St. Gregory, their successor, regarded this title as illegal.
In view of such a decision by the popes themselves,
can much importance be attached to the words
of the legates, and is it fair to use
them as proofs of an authority, of which the expression alone was condemned at Rome? Let us observe,
moreover, that the council in offering a title to the Bishops of Rome, indirectly decided
that they had no
right to it in virtue of their dignity, and that they should
never claim for this
title any thing
more than a purely ecclesiastical value.
As for the confirmation of the
Acts of the Council,
we must observe two things: that it
was the council that confirmed the dogmatic letter of St.
Leo, and that the Fathers
only addressed him in order to ask
his adherence and that of the
Western Church. Leo refused to admit the twenty-eighth canon,
as we have said; yet that did not prevent its being universally admitted in the West no
less than in the East.
Thus the Bishop
of Rome did not convoke the Council of
Chalcedon; he did not preside alone
by his deputies, who only
bad the first place because he was
the first bishop in virtue of the
canons; be did not confirm
the council; and the honorary
titles conferred upon
him prove nothing
in favour of the
universal and sovereign
authority that is sought to be ascribed to the Papacy.
The accounts we have given
can leave no doubt
as to the view which was universally taken of the
authority of the Bishops of Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries.
Yet, in order not to leave unanswered any of the assertions of the
Romish theologians, we
will proceed to examine the facts
and texts in which they have sought
proofs to support their system.
The principal events of the
fourth and fifth centuries
upon which they rely, are those
relating to St. Athanasius, to the Donatists, and to St. John
Chrysostom. Let us consult the positive and admitted data of history
in relation to this subject.
One of the results of the sixth
canon of Nicea bad been to give the first rank in the
Church to the Bishop of Rome. Moreover,
by reason of the circumstances in which the West was placed, he must be considered as its
interpreter. Consequently, the following
ecclesiastical rule*
became a usage: that he should always be invited to the oriental
councils when they should assemble, and that they should decide
nothing without having
his opinion. This was a just rule; for the
East, in itself, no more forms the universal Church than the West; and
the Bishop of Rome represented the entire West at a period when these countries were
overrun by barbarians, when the bishops
could not leave their sees
to go to the East, to testify in discussions in which their particular churches were not interested. This is the reason given by Sozomen.† “Neither the Bishop of the
city of Rome,"
he says, "nor any other
bishop of Italy, or of the more distant
provinces, assembled at this council,
(Antioch,) for the
Franks were then ravaging
Gaul."
Paul of Constantinople, and Athanasius of Alexandria, faithful to the faith of Nicea, being persecuted and condemned by some of
the oriental bishops, sustained by
the imperial power, naturally addressed themselves
to the Western Church,
appealing to the Bishop of Rome, who represented it. “The Bishop
of the city of Rome ," says Sozomen,‡ “and all the bishops of
the West, regarded the deposition of the
orthodox bishops as an insult
to
themselves; for, from the beginning, they had approved
of the Nicene faith,
and still continued of the same opinion.
Hence, they graciously received Athanasius, who went
to them, and they claimed the right to judge his cause. Eusebius (of Nicomedia) was much grieved at this, and wrote of
it to Julius."
Eusebius of Nicomedia represented the Eastern Arians, and it was the Bishop
of Rome who represented the Western bishops. That bishop was Julius. He assumed the defence of the persecuted bishops, sustained them against the Eastern bishops, and, using
thus the prerogatives of his see,§ recognized as legitimate bishops those whom the Arians had unjustly deposed.
The latter assembled at Antioch, and addressed a letter to Julius, in which they sharply told him that it was no more his business to meddle
with those whom they had expelled than it had been theirs
to concern themselves with the affair
of Novatus, whom he had driven from the Church. Sozomen* gives further particulars of this letter. We learn from him that the oriental bishops said, “That the Church
of Rome was glorious, because
it had been the abode of the
Apostles, and that from the beginning, she had been the metropolis
of piety, although the teachers of the
faith had come to her from the East.
Yet it did not appear just to them, that they (the Eastern churches) should be regarded as inferior, because they
* Socrates, Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. c. xvii.
† Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. c. vi.
‡ Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. c. vii.
§ Socrates, Hist. Eccl. Lib,
II. c. xv.
* Sozom. Lib. III. c.
viii.
were surpassed
in number and in magnificence by a church to whom they were superior
in virtue and courage."
Julius did not reply to them that he was chief
of the Church by divine right,
but he reminds them of
the ecclesiastical rule already
quoted, in virtue of
which he had the right
to be summoned and consulted. Sozomen adds,† that "this prerogative, due to the dignity of his
see, gave him the right to take care of all those who
had appealed to him, seeking
refuge from the persecutions of the
Arian faction of the
East, and that he should restore to each one
his church."
The pretensions of the
Bishop of Rome did not extend beyond
an ecclesiastical prerogative. The Eastern bishops
would not believe that Julius was
the interpreter of the Western Church ,
as he claimed in the answer
which he addressed to them.‡
For this reason the bishops
of that part of the Catholic Church
were convoked, that they
might decide between the Eastern bishops and the Bishop of Rome in the case of the persecuted bishops--especially St. Athanasius. That was the
object of the Council
of Sardica, (A. D. 347.)§
This fact alone is sufficient to prove that the universal authority of the
Bishop of Rome
was not then recognized, and that his ecclesiastical prerogative was
subordinate to the judgment of the
council.
Julius wrote to the Council
of Sardica, excusing himself from personally responding to the letter of convocation that had been addressed to him. He
sent two priests and a deacon
to represent him, and the assembly was
presided over by Hosius, Bishop of
Cordova.
The cause of Athanasius and that of the other
bishops deposed in the East by the Arian faction, with the support
of the imperial power, was examined. Their innocence and orthodoxy were established, and they were confirmed as legitimate bishops of their
respective sees. A council
assembled at Rome by
Julius had already pronounced a similar sentence, but that had been found insufficient. Another
council of the West, held at Milan,
requested the Emperor Constans to make arrangement with his brother,
who resided at
The Council of Sardica was neither convoked nor
presided over by the Bishop of Rome. Nor was Hosius there as his
legate, as some say,
without being able to prove it; nor were
his delegates treated
with any particular honour.
In his letter, written
to the Eastern bishops, in the name of
the Roman council,** Julius
had blamed them for having judged Athanasius and the other
bishops, who adhered to the
Nicene Creed, without regard to the custom which had obtained, of deciding nothing in the
East, without referring to the Apostolic
See of the West, “Are you
ignorant," he said, "that it
is the custom to write first to us
?"*
The Council of Sardica strengthened that custom by its third canon, which was
proposed in these terms by Hosius: "If two bishops of
the same province have a discussion, neither of them
shall choose as umpire a bishop of
another province. If a bishop who has been condemned is so certain of his being right,
that he is willing to be judged again in
† Sozom. Lib.
III. c. viii.
‡ letter of Julius to the Eastern Bishops, in the Apology of St. Athanasius, §
26.
§ Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. c. xx.
** Athanas. Apolog.
§ 36.
* Athanas. Apolog.
§ 35.
council—LET
US
HONOR, IF YOU FIND IT WELL TO DO SO, the memory of
the Apostle St. Peter: let those who have
examined the cause WRITE TO JULIUS, BISHOP OF ROME: if he think well
that the case have a rehearing, let him designate the judges; if he think there be no
necessity for reviewing, his decision
shall be final."
This proposition was approved by the council,
and the Bishop
Gaudentius added, (cannon 4th,) that during the appeal, no bishop should be appointed
to the place of the one deposed, until the Bishop
of Rome should judge the case.
The council
(Can. 5th, Greek--7th Latin) prescribed the practice
of these appeals
to
Rome.
The Romish theologians exult in these canons. Yet it is only necessary to read them
carefully to perceive that they are altogether contrary
to that system. In fact, the council, far from
recognizing in the Bishop of Rome an universal and divine authority, did not even sanction, in any general
manner, the usage which had grown up of appealing to the Bishop
of Rome as the representative of the
West. It merely so decided for certain particular cases. Beside the bishops
of the great sees, whom the Arians
persecuted, and whose cause it was the province of the
councils to judge, there were many less important bishops and priests in the East,
whose causes the entire Church
could not consider.†
It is these bishops
that the council refers, in the last resort, to Julius, Bishop of Rome. It
does not refer them to the Bishop of Rome generally, but to Julius. Nor does it make this rule obligatory; the appeal
is purely optional;
and lastly, the council proposes to honour the memory of St. Peter by granting to a Bishop of Rome a prerogative
which it considers new and
exceptional. Is not such a
decision tantamount to a formal declaration that the Pope had no legal rights, even in the decision of questions of discipline and the general government of the
Church ? If the
council had believed
that the Pope had any right whatever, would it
have thought to do him
so great an honour in
granting him a temporary
prerogative ?
The council published its declarations in several
synodical letters,‡ in
which are examined in detail the cases of St.
Athanasius and the other orthodox
bishops persecuted by
the Arians, and unjustly deprived by
them of their sees.
The Romish theologians quote,
with an especial pride,
the synodal letter
to the Bishop of Rome, in which the following language
occurs:
“And thou, beloved
brother, though absent
in body, thou hast been with us
in spirit, because of thy
desire and the accord that is between us.
The excuse thou hast given for not taking part in the council is a good one, and based on necessity; for the schismatic wolves
might, during thine absence, have committed
thefts and laid traps;
the heretical dogs might have
yelped, and, in their senseless rage, have effected mischief;
finally, the infernal
serpent might have diffused
the venom of his
blasphemies. It would have been well and very proper to
convoke the bishops of all the provinces at the capital, that is to say,
at the see of St. Peter; but you will learn from our
letters all that has been done;
and our brethren in the priesthood,
Archidamus and Philoxenus, and our
son Leo the deacon, will make all things known to
you by word of mouth."
We have translated the word caput by capital,
and we believe that such
was the meaning of the council
; for it places
it in contrast to the word
province in the same phrase. It would
have been well, according to the council, to hold the assembly as
Julius desired, at Rome , for the double reason
that Rome was the
capital of the empire, and also the see of St.
Peter.
The Romish theologians translate the word
caput by that of chief; but they do
not thereby help their cause; for
this word signifies both head and first in
hierarchical order.
† See the
letter of Julius to the
Eastern Bishops in the
Apology of St. Athanasius.
‡ Athan. Apolog. Adv. Arianos;
Hillary of Poitiers , Fragments; Theodoret, Eccl.
Hist.
That the Bishop
of Rome is the head of the
Church, as being first bishop and holding the highest see, we do not deny ; that he is the first
in the hierarchical order established by the Church every one allows;
what then is the use of translating illogically a text of
the Council of Sardica, for the
sake of propping up a system which it really
can in no wise be made to favour ?
While endeavouring to draw
such great advantage from one word employed by the Council of Sardica, these theologians have kept out of
sight the facts which clearly
appear from the transactions of that holy assembly, namely, that it was
convoked by the Emperors
Constans and Constantius--as the council itself and all the historians
affirm; that it was convoked in order to pass
upon a decision rendered
by the Pope, in a council at Rome; that
Hosius presided, and not the legates;* and finally, that, instead
of being itself confirmed by the
Pope, it was the council that confirmed the sentence
of the Pope, and that granted him certain ecclesiastical privileges.†
These incontrovertible facts are more significant than a mistranslated word can be in the
question of Papal authority, and give to the appeal
of St. Athanasius
its true character.
Let us now examine the case of
the Donatists.
It is not our purpose to explain in detail the causes of this
schism, which so long
afflicted the Church of Africa. From the numerous facts connected with it, we
only intend to draw this conclusion, that both the schismatics and the Catholics recognized in the episcopate the only authority
competent to decide the questions that divided the Church. Hence the
numerous councils that were called on both
sides, and which mutually condemned each
other. Constantine, immediately upon his elevation to the throne, wrote
to Cæcilianus, Bishop
of Carthage, to offer him money and the protection of his
lieutenants to enable him to bring
the schismatics to order. The latter endeavored to justify themselves
before the prince, claiming that the bishops who had condemned them were judges
in their own cause, and praying, the Emperor to allow them to be tried by bishops
from Gaul, where he then was. He consented, and named as judges three of the
most learned and distinguished bishops of the age--Matenus
of Cologne, Rheticius of Autun, and Marinus of Arles. He sent them to Rome,
to join with Miltiades, bishop of that city, and Mark,‡ in
hearing the conflicting depositions of Cæcilianus and his opponents. Eusebius has preserved the letter which Constantine wrote
upon this occasion to the Bishop
of Rome and to Mark.
We will translate that letter, together with an extract from the petition
of the Donatists to Constantine. These documents will determine the character of the appeal of the Donatists, and will prove that the Romish
theologians are wrong in
citing it in support
of their opinions.
Here is, first, the extract preserved by St. Optatus.§
“We beseech thee, O
Constantine! most excellent emperor, thou that comest from a
righteous family, (for thy father
was not a persecutor like his colleagues; and Gaul is free
from this crime,).* since between us bishops in Africa there are dissensions,
we beseech thee let thy piety give us
judges who are of Gaul !"
* To establish this fact, it is only necessary to
quote the first line
of the signatures of the council:
“Hosius of
† St. Athanasius, Apol. adv. Arian., and
History of the Arians for the monks.
Eccl. Hists. of Socrates, Sozomen, and
Theodoret. Acts of the Council
in Father Labbe’s Collection.
‡ It
is very generally
admitted by
the learned that Mark was an influential priest, who was Bishop of Rome after
Sylvester.
§ St. Optat. Book I.
against
Parmenianus.
* The Donatists
here refer to the crime of having given
up the Holy Scriptures during the persecutions.
In consequence of
this petition, Constantine chose
the three bishops we have mentioned, adding to their number the Bishop of Rome and Mark,
to examine and give judgment in the case. Constantine writes
thus to the two Roman judges:†
“ Constantine Augustus, to Miltiades, Bishop of Rome and to Marcus.‡ As many
communications of this kind have been sent to me from Anulinus, the most illustrious proconsul of Africa, in which it is contained that Cæcilianus, the Bishop of Carthage,
was accused in many respects by his
colleagues in Africa, and is this appears to be grievous, that in
those provinces which divine Providence has freely intrusted
to my fidelity, and in which there is a vast population, the multitude
are found inclining to deteriorate, and in a manner
divided into two parties, and among others, that the bishops were at variance; I have resolved that the same Cæcilianus, together with ten bishops,
who appear to accuse him, and ten
others, whom he himself may consider
necessary for his cause,
shall sail to Rome. That you
(imón) being present
there, as also Reticius, Maternus, and Marinus,
your colleagues, whom I
have commanded to hasten to Rome for this purpose, he may be heard, as
you may understand most consistent with the most sacred law. And, indeed, that you may have the most
perfect knowledge of these
matters, I have subjoined to my own epistle copies of the writings sent to me by
Anulinus, and sent them to your aforesaid colleagues. In which your gravity will read and consider in what way
the aforesaid cause may be most accurately investigated and justly decided,
since it does not escape your diligence that I
show such regard for the Holy Catholic Church, that I wish you, upon the whole,
to leave no room
for schism or division. May the
power of the great
God preserve you many years,
most esteemed."
From the foregoing documents we
must conclude, that the Donatists did not appeal
to Rome, but to the Emperor;
that they did not ask
the arbitration of the Bishop of Rome,
but of the Gallican
bishops; that it was
the Emperor who added of his own
motion the Bishop of Rome and Mark to
the three Gallican
bishops whom he had chosen.
Is there in all this the shadow of an argument in favour of the.
sovereign authority of the
Bishop of Rome ?
Could the choice of the, place seem important?
Evidently not, for there is nothing Peculiar
in Constantine 's choosing the city whither
one could most easily go from
both Africa and Gaul ; and this choice
explains why he added Miltiades and Mark to
the judges asked for
by the Donatists. It would have been very improper to send bishops to Rome to judge an ecclesiastical cause, without asking
the intervention of
those who were at the head of
the Roman Church. It is thus easy to see why Constantine named Miltiades and Mark judges in the
case of the Donatists, although
their intervention had not been asked.
Fifteen other Italian bishops
went to Rome for this
affair. The council
pronounced in favor of Cæcilianus. The Bishop of Rome having
been of the council,
the sentence would
† Euseb. Eccl.
Hist. BookX. ch. v.
‡ This
Mark has been very troublesome to the Romish theologians. If he had
not been named with the Bishop of
Rome, it would
have been far easier to have made of the latter a sovereign
judge to whom the three Gallican bishops
were added merely from motives of expediency, and to remove every
pretext on which the Donatists
could oppose the sentence. But the
bare name of this
Mark is sufficient
to forbid that conclusion.
Baronius was so thoroughly
convinced of this, that he has tried to
prove that there was in this place an errour of the copyist.
He therefore proposes
to replace the words Ke Márko by ierárhi. There are many
inconveniences attendant upon this, besides
that of distorting Eusebius’s text. The first
is the word hierarch signifies bishop, and Miltiades is already called by Constantine Bishop of Rome. Why should he
have given him twice the same
qualification in the superscription
of his letter? The second is,
that the word ierárhi, to mean bishop, was
not
yet in use,
in the fourth century. All the
learned oppose these reasons to Baronius,
and call attention to the
further fact that
all the manuscripts clearly bear the words Ke Márko.
Must a text be
distorted and a bad word
introduced in order to please
the Romish theologians?
The end will not justify the means.
necessarily have been regarded as final
if his sovereign authority had been recognized. Such was not the case.
The Donatists complained that the Gallican bishops whom they had asked
for were too few in number at Rome, and demanded a
more numerous council, in which their cause
should be examined with more care.
Constantine convoked this council
at Arles. He invited
there a large
number of bishops from different provinces
of his empire--that is to say, of the West, for at this time he only
possessed that part of the
Roman empire . Eusebius has
preserved Constantine's letter to the
Bishop of Syracuse, inviting
him to come to Arles.* This letter is important as showing that the judgment at Rome was not
considered final,
and that it was
the Emperor who convoked the Council of Arles.
But the Fathers
of the council themselves say so in their
letter to Sylvester, Bishop of Rome, who had
succeeded Miltiades. The Bishop of Rome sent thither as his legates, the priests Claudianus and Vitus, and the deacons
Eugenius and Cyriacus. The council
took place in 315,
ten years before the great
Council of Nicea.
Marinus
of Arles presided. After confirming the sentence
of the Council of Rome, the bishops saw fit to make several
ordinances, which they sent to Sylvester
with this letter
“Marinus, etc., etc., to the well-beloved Pope Sylvester, eternal life in the Lord.
"United by the bonds of mutual charity and in the unity
of the Catholic Church,
our
mother, from the city of Arles ,
where our most pious emperor has caused us to meet, We salute you, most glorious father,
with all the respect which is due to you.
"We have had to do
with men both licentious and most dangerous to our
law and tradition ; but thanks to the power of
God who is present
in our midst, and to tradition and the rule of truth, they have been confounded, silenced, and rendered
unable to carry out and prove their accusations; wherefore
by the judgment of God and the Church,
who knows her own, they have been condemned.
‘Would to God,
beloved brother, you had
condescended to be present at this
spectacle! We think that the sentence given against
them would have been still more
overwhelming, and, if you had
given judgement with us,
we would have experienced a still
greater joy; but you could not leave those places
where the apostles
still preside, and where their blood renders a continual witness to the glory of God.
“Well-beloved brother, we have not thought
it necessary to confine ourselves solely to the business for which we assembled, but have also considered the necessities of our respective provinces; and we send you our ordinances, that through you, who have the
greatest authority, they may become universally known."
It is generally
claimed in the West, that by
these last words, the Council of Arles recognized the universal authority of the Bishop of
Rome. But it is not sufficiently remembered that this council was held
without any cooperation on the part of that
bishop; that he did not preside;
that in the letter of the Fathers,
no mention is made of his
authority, among, the motives that caused to condemn the Donatists; that they do not
wait for his approbation for his
approbation or confirmation in order to their disciplinarian ordinances ; that they merely apprize
him of them, in order that, since in his position of
bishop of an apostolic see he bad the greatest
authority, he might make them known to
all.
This only proves that the Bishop of Rome was recognized as the first in the West,
because of the apostolic authority and of
dignity of his see; that he was
thus the natural
medium between the West and the apostolic sees of
the East. To find more than this in the
words of the Council of Arles would be to distort them. It suffices
to notice, that this
* Euseb. loc.
cit. Saint Opatus, Book
I. Letters of
St. Augustin, passim. Father
Labee’s Collect. of Gallican
Councils
in Sirmond.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
Traditional Catholic Prayers: The Mark, the Name, the Number of the beast and the Tower of Babel = Ecumenism: Parousia of Jesus Christ Our ...
-
I ARISE TODAY IN A HYMN OF PRAISE TO THE LORD OF CREATION IN ALL HOLY Blessing and brightness, Wisdom, thanksgiving, Great power and might T...
-
Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel + In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Most glorious Prince ...
-
Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, have mercy on us. Lord, have mercy on us. Father all powerful, Have mercy on us. Jesus,...
-
Terse Open our hearts, O Lord and enlighten us by the grace of the Holy Spirit that we may seek what is pleasing to your will and so order ...
-
Timeline of the Schism that wasn't and the beginning of the Cardinalate that had never been. The Modern Papacy - an invention. In the...
-
It was the ancient Gnostic heretics which were the chief coming of Antichrist fakirs that the Early Church Fathers warned against and fore...
-
Traditional Catholic Prayers: Traditional Catholic Prayers: The Litany of the Saints Traditional Catholic Prayers: The Litany of the Sa...
Christ will return, first: the Coming of Antichrist
The Parousia of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - The Nuzul i Isa (descent from heaven) of 'Isa al-Maseeh and Qiyamah, judgment of all men, at the Resurrection.
The Antichrist comes first. We are to have nothing to do with that, even at the cost of our lives.
МАРК, ИМЯ, НОМЕР ЗВЕРЯ И БАШНЯ BABEL = ECUMENISM
The Antichrist comes first. We are to have nothing to do with that, even at the cost of our lives.
МАРК, ИМЯ, НОМЕР ЗВЕРЯ И БАШНЯ BABEL = ECUMENISM
No comments:
Post a Comment