IV.
TEACHINGS OF VARIOUS CHURCH FATHERS
TEACHINGS OF VARIOUS CHURCH FATHERS
FACTS combine with doctrinal evidences to prove that the Papacy
enjoyed no universal authority during the first three centuries of the
Church; to prove that the bishops
of Rome had in ecclesiastical affairs
only such influence as was necessarily derived from the
importance and dignity of their
see; the only one in the West, which was
generally recognized as apostolic.
Moreover, the Church of Rome was the
mother of many other churches, over which she
exercised a certain authority, as we learn from the sixth
canon of the first œcumenical
council held at Nicea A.D. 325.
There has been
a great deal of
discussion upon this famous cannon, in which the
Roman theologians have endeavoured to see an argument in favour of
their opinions.
They have called in evidence all the manuscripts
in order to find some that should
favour their views; and they have, in fact, found
some
which serve them admirably, by
reason of
certain additions, which
would be very satisfactory if they were only authentic. For
instance: "Since, then, the holy synod
has confirmed the primacy
of the Apostolic See, which is what is due to the merit of St.
Peter, who is the prince of the
whole episcopate (literally, of the episcopal crown) and to the dignity
of the city of Rome."
This is certainly
a beautiful preamble for the
sixth canon of Nicea;
but it is unfortunate that the forger should betray himself, even by
his style,* which cannot be
antecedent to the date of
the manuscript itself, namely, the middle ages.
In a Roman manuscript, at the head of
the sixth canon, we read: “The Roman Church always
had the primacy." These words, which we might
otherwise adopt; are copied from the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and in no wise belong to those of Nicea
any more than this other formula interpolated in another manuscript, "Let the Roman Church have the primacy
forever." All these
additions were unknown in the ninth century,
since the author
of the Fausses Décrétales, who was then living, and who would not have failed to profit by them,
has given the canons of the
early councils,
according to Dionysius
Exiguus. This learned man, who made his collection of the canons at Rome
“Let the ancient
custom be preserved, that exists in Egypt , Lybia,,
and Pentapolis, that the
Bishop of Alexandria have authority in all these countries, since that has also
passed into
a custom for
the Bishop of Rome. Let the churches
at Antioch and in the other provinces preserve also their privileges. Now, it is very evident, that if any one be made bishop
without the concurrence of the
metropolitan, the great council
declares that he may not be bishop," etc., etc.
The object of this
canon was to defend
the authority of the Bishop
of Alexandria against the partisans of Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, who refused to recognize it in
episcopal ordinations.
* We give it as
a specimen of its kind:
necessary to have read two pages of the Ecclesiastical Remains of the Fourth
Century, to discover
at first sight the fraud, and be persuaded
that
this ambitious and
uncouth verbiage is of a much later age.
The object of the sixth
canon, therefore, was merely to confirm
the ancient customs
respecting these ordinations, and, in general,
the privileges consecrated by ancient usage. Now, according to an ancient custom, Rome enjoyed certain
prerogatives that no one contested. The council
makes use of this fact in order to confirm the similar prerogatives of Alexandria, Antioch, and other
churches.
But what were the churches over which, according to custom, the Church of Rome
exercised a right of supervision ?
Ruffinus designates them Suburbicarian. This writer, who wrote
his Ecclesiastical History in the fourth century,
who was born at Aquileia and dwelt at Rome, must have known the extent of the jurisdiction of the Roman Church
in his times. Now, what does he understand by
the suburbicarian churches? It is known that from and after Constantine ’s
reign, the Church was divided in dioceses and provinces like the empire itself.* From this
undeniable fact, we
know the suburbicarian churches; they are those which existed in places of the same name in the fourth
century-these places being those that were dependent upon the diocese, or the
prefecture of Rome -that is to say, the ten provinces called “Sicilia,
Corsica, Sardinia , Campania , Tuscia,
Picenum Suburbicarium, Apulia
cum Calabria , Bruttium , Samnium
and Rome the metropolis of the Roman Territory
When the Fathers
of the Church speak
of the see of Rome as
the first of the West,
they do not intend to speak of
its universal jurisdiction, but of
its greatness as the only
apostolic episcopate of these
countries.
The provinces which the Council
of Nicea subjected to the jurisdiction of the Bishop
of Alexandria formed the diocese of Egypt, just as those subject
to the Bishop of Rome
formed the diocese of Rome . It makes a comparison between them that perfectly
agrees with the commentary of Ruffinus. The sixth and seventh canons
of the Council of Nicea
may be considered as the
legal origin of the patriarchates; the title was
not yet in use, but the order was established. According to the principle admitted by the
first general council, the number of patriarchs was not limited to four; we
are even given to understand that beside the four
great apostolic churches of
Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, there were others
which enjoyed similar privileges. The bishops of these
churches did not obtain the title of patriarch, but they enjoyed other titles that raised them above the simple metropolitans, such as exarch and primate.
In spite of the subterfuges of the Romish theologians, they cannot escape from two consequences of the sixth canon of
the Council of Nicea:
1st. The council
declared that the authority
of the Bishop of Rome extended
only over a limited district, like that of the
Bishop of Alexandria.
2d.
That this authority was only based upon
usage.
Hence, it follows that this authority in the eyes of the council was not
universal; that it
was not of divine right. The ultramontane system, being
entirely based upon the
universal and divine character
of the Papal authority, is diametrically
opposed to the sixth canon of
the Nicene Council.
* A diocese was then a union of several provinces, and a province
was a section of a diocese. The words have changed
their sense, and at this
time an ecclesiastical
province is composed
of several dioceses.
† St. Athanas. Ep. ad Solit.
Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the council, by
invoking the Roman custom, in
confirmation of that of Alexandria, recognized the legitimacy of
the established usage, and
rendered homage to the dignity of the
Roman see; but we
must add, that the prerogatives
recognized in it were not those to which it has
since laid claim.
The General Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, which is the second œcumenical
council, has well interpreted that of Nicea
by its third canon, " Let the Bishop of
constantinople have the primacy of honour (priores
honoris partes) after the Bishop
of Rome, because Constantinople is the new Rome
The Bishop of Rome was, therefore, regarded as the first in
honour, because he was bishop of the capital of the
empire. Byzantium having
become the second capital,
under the name of
Constantinople, its bishop became entitled to be second
in rank, according to the
principle that had governed the Council of Nicea
in the exterior constitution of the
Church, and according to which the divisions of
the empire were made the divisions of the
Church.
The Œcumenical Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, which met a century after that of Constantinople, throws a new light upon this
point, and thus expresses
itself in the twenty- eighth canon:
“In all things following
the decrees of the holy Fathers, and recognizing the canon
just read by the one hundred
and fifty bishops
well-beloved of God, (third canon of
the second council,) we decree
and establish the same thing
touching the privileges of the most holy
Church of Constantinople, the new Rome. Most
justly did the Fathers
grant privileges to the see of
the ancient Rome , BECAUSE SHE WAS THE REIGNING (capital) CITY. Moved by the same motive, the one hundred and fifty bishops Well beloved
of God, grant equal privileges to the most holy see of the
new Rome , thinking,
very properly, that the city that
has the honour to be the seat of
the empire and of the senate, should enjoy in ecclesiastical
things the same privileges as Rome , the ancient queen city, since the former,
although of later origin, has been
raised and honoured
as much as the latter." In consequence of this decree,
the council
subjected the dioceses of Pontus ,
of Asia,* and of Thrace , to the jurisdiction of
the Bishop of Constantinople.
The legates of Pope Leo I in the Council of Chalcedon opposed this canon. It was
adopted, Nevertheless; but the Fathers of the
council addressed a respectful letter to Leo, in
which, after alluding to the opposition of the legates, they add: " We therefore beg you to honour our JUDGMENT by your own decrees."
Romish theologians have claimed to see in this proceeding a proof that the Fathers
of Chalcedon recognized in the Bishop
of Rome a supreme authority over the decisions of the councils, which, they say,
would be of no avail if not confirmed by him. But it is more just to see
in this but an act of great propriety inspired
by the love of peace
and harmony. The
council would of course desire that the West should
be in concord with the East. The Bishop
of Rome represented the West in the council, being the only bishop in the West possessing an apostolic see; again, his see was the
first in honour in the universal Church, and evidently it was proper to entreat him to acquiesce
in the decision of the
council. He was not asked
to confirm it, but by
his own decrees to honour the judgment which had been rendered. If the confirmation of the
Bishop of Rome had been necessary, would the decree of Chalcedon
have been a judgment, a promulgated decision
before that confirmation?
St. Leo did not understand the letter
from the Council of Chalcedon as do our Romish theologians. He refused--not to confirm it by his authority--but simply to admit it. “This
* Asia Minor is understood, the
ancient Metropolis of which was Ephesus. The part of
decree shall never obtain
our consent," he said.* And why did he refuse his consent? Because the decree of Chalcedon took from the Bishop of Alexandria the second rank,
and the third from the Bishop
of Antioch, and was in
so far forth contrary
to the sixth canon of the
Council of Nicea, and because the same decree prejudiced the rights of several primates or metropolitans.† In
another letter addressed to the Emperor Marcianus,‡ St. Leo reasoned
in the same manner: "The
Bishop of Constantinople,
in spite of the glory
of his church, cannot make it apostolic; he has
no right to aggrandize it at the expense
of churches whose
privileges, established by canons of the holy Fathers and settled by the
decrees of the venerable Council
of Nicea, cannot be unsettled by perversity nor violated by
innovation."
The Church of Rome has too well forgotten this principle of one of her greatest bishops.
In his letter to the Empress Pulcheria,§ St. Leo declares that he has “annulled the decree of Chalcedon by the
authority of the blessed
Apostle St. Peter." These words seem at first
sight to mean that he claimed for
himself a sovereign authority in the Church
in the name of
St. Peter; but upon a more careful
and an unbiased examination
of his letters and other
writings, we are convinced that St. Leo only spoke as the bishop of an apostolic see, and that in this character he claimed the right,
in the name of the
apostles who had founded his church, and of the
western countries which he represented, to resist any attempt on the part of the Eastern
Church to decide,
alone, matters of general interest to the whole Church.
The proof that he regarded matters in this light is that he does not claim
for himself
any personal authority of divine origin, descended to him from St. Peter,
but that, on the contrary, he presents himself as
defender of the canons,
and looks upon the
rights and reciprocal duties of
the churches as having been established by the Fathers and fixed by the Council of Nicea. He does not
pretend that his church
has any exceptional rights, emanating
from another source. But by ecclesiastical right, he is the first bishop of the Church; besides, he occupies the apostolic
see of the West; in these characters he must interfere and prevent
the ambition of one
particular church from impairing rights that the cannons have accorded to
other bishops, too feeble to resist, and from disturbing the peace of
the whole Church. After
carefully reading all that St. Leo has written against the canon of
the Council of Chalcedon, it
cannot be doubted what he really meant. He does not claim for himself the autocracy
which Romish theologians make the ground-work
of papal authority. In his
letter to the Fathers of the
Council of Chalcedon, he only styles
himself "guardian of the
catholic faith and of
the constitutions of the Fathers," and not chief
and master of the
Church by divine right.** He
regarded the canon of the Council
of Chalcedon as wrung from the members of that
assembly by the influence of the Bishop of Constantinople, and he wrote to the Bishop of Antioch,†† that he ought to consider
that canon as null,
inasmuch as it
was contrary to the decrees of Nicea.
“Now," he adds, “universal peace can only subsist
upon the condition that the canons be respected."
Modern Popes would not
have written thus, but would have substituted their personal
authority for the language of the
canons.
Anatolius of Constantinople wrote to St. Leo that he was
wrong, in attributing the twenty-eighth canon of the Council
of Chalcedon to his influence; that the Fathers
of the council had enjoyed
full liberty; and that as far
as he himself was
concerned, he did not care
* St. Leo, epis. liii. vet.
edit.; lxxxiv.edit.Quesn.
† Ibid.
‡ St. Leo, epis. iiv. vet.
edit.; ixxxviii. edit. Quesn.
§ St. Leo, epis. iv. vet.edit.
** St. Leo, epis. ixi.vet.edit.; lxxx.edit.Quesn.
†† St.
Leo,
epis. ixii. vet.edit;
xcii.edit.Quesn.
for
the privileges that had been conferred upon him. Nevertheless, these privileges remained
in spite of the opposition of the
Bishop of Rome, and were recognized even in the West. Let
us give one proof among a thousand. It is a letter
from an illustrious Gallican
bishop--St. Avitus, metropolitan Bishop
of Vienne--to John, Bishop of Constantinople.* At
the same time we can perceive in the struggles between the bishops
of Rome and Constantinople
respecting the canon of Chalcedon, the origin of the dissensions which afterward led to an
entire rupture. In principle, Leo was right to defend the canons of Nicea; but he could not
deny that one œcumenical council
had the same rights
as another that had preceded it; especially while it adhered to the spirit
that had directed
it. The Nicene Council, in consecrating the usage by which the Bishop of Rome was regarded as the first in honour in the
Church, had in view not so
much
the apostolic origin of
his see, as the splendour which he
acquired from the importance of
the city of Rome; for many
other churches had an equally
apostolic origin, and Antioch, as a church founded
by St. Peter, had priority over Rome. Why, then, should
not the Bishop
of Constantinople have been received as second
in rank, Constantinople having
become the second capital
of the empire; since the Bishop of Rome
was first in rank, only because
of its position as
the first capital? It was well
understood that the Council
of Chalcedon had not been unfaithful to the spirit
that had inspired
that of Nicea; and that if it had somewhat changed the letter of its decrees,
it had
done so in obedience to the same motives that had directed the first œcumenical assembly. It
sustained itself, moreover, upon
the second œcumenical council,
which, without giving
to the Bishop of Constantinople any patriarchal jurisdiction, had, nevertheless, conferred upon him the title of second
bishop of the universal Church, and that too without
any opposition on the part of the Bishop of Rome, or any
other Bishop in the West.
The twenty-eighth canon of
Chalcedon was the consequence of the third canon of
Constantinople. It was the
more necessary to give to a patriarch jurisdiction over the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace,
that elections and consecrations occasioned in these
dioceses perpetual
struggles between the primates and the metropolitans. The Council of
Nicea having sanctioned the privileges founded upon usage, every primate and metropolitan
pretended to have some such
rights.
It was thus the Bishop
of Antioch endeavoured to stretch
his jurisdiction
over the isle of Cyprus; but from time immemorial this Church had governed herself
by her bishops together with the metropolitan. The case was carried to the Œcumenical Council
of Ephesus, which declared in favor of the
Church of Cyprus. Its
motive was, “that it was necessary to beware, lest under
pretext of the priesthood the liberty
be lost which Jesus Christ, the
liberator of all
men, has given to us,
at the cost of his blood."†
Posts
![The Rainbow Swastika [a warning about paganism masquerading as Judaism - ed. note]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJX47NwAhWdSEiYp-166MRnas9KZK7elpBviCaY7Xoxib7COsDS1RWIEzSLScNzliWLqCsS0jg5bUTKXO78tINlIUBKzM9nFge4ZDfoG5Iuce-cvtVzEOXtVC94GO9S2rUAzan1J3rR8s/s220/trshdr.jpg){kind=small}
No comments:
Post a Comment