The following is Section 5 of the Introduction to "A history of the Christian councils, from the original documents" by "Right Rev. Charles Joseph Hefele, D.D.". This section discusses the relationship of the Pope to the Ecumenical Synods of the East. The full text of this excellent work is available from Archive.org here. The majority of the Latin and Greek passages have been removed (most of these omissions are indicated by ellipses) because they are too garbled by the OCR in the online version to be useful.
Sec. 5. The Presidency of Councils
As the presidency of a diocesan synod belongs to the bishop, of a provincial synod to the metropolitan, of a national to the primate or patriarch, so, in the nature of the case, the presidency of an oecumenical council belongs to the supreme ruler of the whole Church — to the Pope; and this is so clear, that the most violent partisans of the episcopal system, who assign to the Pope only a primacy of honour (primatus honoris), yet do not in the least impugn his right to preside at oecumenical synods. The Pope may, however, exercise this presidency in person, or he may be represented, as has frequently been the case, by his legates. Against this papal right of presidency at cecumenical synods the Reformers brought forward the objection, that the history of the Church showed clearly that the Emperors had presided at some of the first eight councils. There was, indeed, no difficulty in bringing forward proof in support of their assertion, since Pope Stephen v. himself writes that the Emperor Constantine presided at the first Council of Nicea, and the ancient acts of the synods frequently refer to a presidency of the Emperor or his representatives. But all such objections, however dangerous they may at first seem to be to our position, lose their power when we come to consider more closely the state of things in connection with the ancient councils, and are willing to discuss the matter impartially.
Let us begin with the eighth OEcumenical Synod, as the last of those which here come into question — that is to say, the last of the Oriental Synods — and from this ascend back to the first.
1. Pope Hadrian II sent his legates to the eighth OEcumenical Synod, on the express written condition, addressed to the Emperor Basil, that they should preside. The legates, Donatus Bishop of Ostia, Stephen Bishop of Nepesina, and Marinus a deacon of Rome, read this letter before the Synod, without the slightest objection being brought forward. On the contrary, their names were always placed first in the minutes; the duration of the sessions was decided by them; and they gave permission for addresses, for the reading of the acts of the Synod, and for the introduction of other members of the Synod; and appointed the questions for discussion. In short, they appear in the first five sessions without dispute as the presidents of the Synod. At the sixth and following sessions the Emperor Basil was present, with his sons Constantine and Leo; and he obtained the presidency, as the acts relate. But these acts clearly distinguish the Emperor and his sons from the Synod; for, after naming them, they add, "the holy and oecumenical Synod agreeing". Thus we perceive that the Emperor and his sons are not reckoned among the members of the Synod, whilst the papal legates are constantly placed first among the members. It is the legates, too, who in these later sessions decide the subjects which shall be brought forward: they also are the first who sign the acts of the Synod, and that expressly as presidents; whilst the Emperor gave a clear proof that he did not regard himself as the real president, by wishing to sign them after all the bishops. The papal legates, on the other hand, entreated him to place his own and his sons' names at the top; but he decidedly refused this, and at last consented to sign after the representatives of the Pope and the Oriental bishops, and before the other bishops. In perfect agreement with this, Pope Hadrian II, in his letter to the Emperor, commended him for having been present at this Synod, not as judge, but as witness and protector? Still less than the Emperors themselves had the imperial commissaries who were present at synods a right of presidency, since their names were placed, in all minutes of the sessions, immediately after the representatives of the patriarchs, but before the other bishops, and they did not subscribe the acts at all. On the other hand, it may be said that the patriarchs of the East — Ignatius of Constantinople, and the representatives of the others — in some measure participated in the presidency, since they are always named along with the Roman legates, and are carefully distinguished from the other metropolitans and bishops. They form, together with the Roman legates, so to speak, the board of direction, deciding in common with them the order of the business," regulating with them the rule of admission to the synod. They subscribe, like the legates, before the Emperor, and are named in the minutes and in the separate sessions before the imperial commissaries. But, all this being granted, the papal legates still take, undeniably the first place, inasmuch as they are always the first named, and first subscribe the acts of the Synod, and, what is particularly to be observed, at the last subscription make use of the formula, " presiding over this holy and oecumenical synod"; whilst Ignatius of Constantinople and the representatives of the other patriarchs claim no presidency, but subscribe simply with the words, "As receiving this holy and OEcumenical synod, and agreeing with all things which it has decided, and which are written here, and as defining them, I subscribe." Moreover, as we find a remarkable difference between them and the papal legates, so there is also, on the other side, a considerable difference between their signature and that of the other bishops. The latter, like the Emperor, have simply used the words, susdpiens subscripsi, without the addition of definiens, by which the votum decisivum was usually indicated.
2. At all the sessions of the seventh OEcumenical Synod,the papal legates, the Archpresbyter Peter and the Abbot Peter, came first; after them Tarasius Archbishop of Constantinople, and the representatives of the other patriarchs; next to them the other bishops; and, last of all, the imperial commissaries. The decrees were signed in the same order,only that the imperial commissaries took no part in the subscription. The Empress Irene and her son were present at the eighth and last session of the Council as honorary presidents, and signed the decrees of the first seven sessions, which had been already signed by the bishops. According to a Latin translation of the acts of this Synod, it was only the papal legates, the Bishop of Constantinople, and the representatives of the other Eastern patriarchs, who on this occasion made use of the word definiens in subscribing the decrees, justas at the eighth Council; but the Greek version of the acts has the word 6picras in connection with the signature of the other bishops. Besides, we must not omit to state that, notwithstanding the presidency of the papal legates, Tarasius Archbishop of Constantinople had the real management of the business at this Synod.
3. At the sixth OEcumenical Synod the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus was present in person, together with several high officials of the state. The minutes of the sessions name him as president, and give the names of his officials immediately after his own. They next proceed to the enumeration of the proper members of the Synod, with the formula, "the holy and oecumenical Synod being assembled", — thereby distinguishing, as in the case already mentioned, the Emperor and his officials from the Synod proper; and name as its first members the papal legates, the priests Theodore and George,and the deacon John.' So these legates are the first to subscribe the acts of the Council; and the Emperor signed at the end, after all the bishops, and, as is expressly stated, to give more authority to the decrees of the Synod, and to confirm them with the formula, "We have read and consented". He thus made a distinction between himself and the Synod proper; whilst it cannot, however, be denied that the Emperor and his plenipotentiaries often conducted the business of the Synod.
4. At the fifth OEcumenical Council, as has been already pointed out, neither the Emperor (Justinian) nor yet the Pope or his legate was present. It was Eutychius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, who presided.
5. The fourth OEcumenical Council is of more importance for the question now before us. So early as on the 24th of June 451, Pope Leo the Great wrote to the Emperor Marcian that he had named Paschasinus Bishop of Idlybseum as his legate. This legate, Paschasinus, in, the name of himself and his colleagues (for Leo associated with him two other legates — the Bishop Lucentius and the Priest Boniface), at the third session of Chalcedon, issued the announcement that Pope Leo had commanded them, insignificant as they were, to preside in his place over this holy synod; and soon after. Pope Leo wrote to the bishops of Gaul, speaking of his legates, in the following terms: "My brothers who presided in my stead over the Eastern Synod." Pope Vigilius afterwards asserted the same, when, in a circular letter addressed to the whole Church, he says, "over which our predecessor of holy memory. Pope Leo, presided by his legates and vicars." Of still greater importance is it that the Council of Chalcedon itself, in its synodal letter to Pope Leo, expressly says, ... "Thou, by thy representatives, hast taken the lead among the members of the Synod, as the head among the members of the body." These testimonies — especially the last — are of so much weight, that they would seem to leave no room for doubt. And yet, on the other hand, it is a matter of fact that imperial commissaries had the place of honour at the Synod of Chalcedon, in the midst, before the rails of the altar; they are the first named in the minutes; they took the votes, arranged the order of the business, closed the sessions, and thus discharged those functions which belong to the president of an assembly. In the sixth session the Emperor Marcian was himself present, proposed the questions,and conducted the business. In these acts the Emperor and his commissaries also appear as the presidents, and the papal legates only as first among the voters. How, then, can we reconcile the contradiction which apparently exists between these facts and the statements already made? And how could the Council of Chalcedon say that, by sending his legates, the Pope had taken the lead among the members of the Synod? The solution of the difficulty is to be found in the same synodical letter written by the Pope to the Synod. It reads thus: "Faithful Emperors have used the presidency for the better preservation of order." In fact, this presidency which was granted to the imperial commissaries referred only to the outward working — to the material conducting of the business of the synod. They were not connected with the internal work, and left the decisions of the synods without interference, gave no vote in the determination of questions concerning the faith, and repeatedly distinguished between themselves and the council. The acts of Chalcedon also show the same distinction. After having mentioned the imperial commissaries, they add these words, "the holy Synod assembled," etc. We may add also, that neither the Emperor nor his commissaries signed the acts of the Council of Chalcedon : it was the Pope's legate who always signed first, and repeatedly added to his name, even when the Emperor was present, the title of synodo prcesidens.
We are thus gradually able to explain the double relations existing between the papal legates and the imperial commissaries, quite analogous to that expressed in the words of Constantine the Great: "And I am a bishop. You are bishops for the interior business of the Church" ...; "I am the bishop chosen by God to conduct the exterior business of the Church''. The official conduct of business, so to speak, the direction as well as the seat of honour,was reserved for the imperial commissaries. The Pope's legates,although only having the first place among the voters, had the presidency ... of the synod, that is, of the assembly of the bishops in specie; and when the imperial commissaries were absent, as was the case during the third session, they had also the direction of the business.
6. The Emperor Theodosius ll nominated the Comes Candidian as his representative at the third OEcumenical Council, held at Ephesus in 431. In a letter addressed to the assembled fathers, the Emperor himself clearly determined the situation of Candidian towards the Council. He says: "I have sent Candidian to your Synod as Comes sacrorum doniesticorum; but he is to take no part in discussions on doctrine, since it is not allowable to any one, unless enrolled among the most holy bishops, to inter meddle in ecclesiastical discussions" ... .
The Emperor then positively indicates what were to be the duties of Candidian: namely, that he was to send away the laity and the monks, if they repaired in too great numbers to Ephesus; he was to provide for the tranquility of the city and the safety of the Synod; he was to take care that differences of opinion that might arise between the members of the Synod should not degenerate into passionate controversies, but that each might express his opinion without fear or hindrance, in order that, whether after quiet or noisy discussions upon each point, the bishops might arrive at a unanimous decision. Finally, he was to prevent any one from leaving the Synod without cause, and also to see that no other theological discussion should be entered into than that which had occasioned the assembling of the Synod, or that no private business should be brought up or discussed.
Pope Celestine I on his side had appointed the two bishops Arcadius and Projectus, together with the priest Philippus, as his legates, and had instructed them to act according to the advice of Cyril, and to maintain the prerogatives of the Apostolic See. The Pope had before nominated Cyril as his representative in the Nestorian matter, and in his letter of 10th of August 430 he invested him with full apostolic power. It is known that from the beginning Candidian showed himself very partial to the friends of Nestorius, and tried to postpone the opening of the Council When, however, Cyril held the first sitting on the 24th June 431, the Count was not present, and so his name does not appear in the minutes. On the contrary, at the head of the list of the bishops present is found the name of Cyril, with this significant observation, "that he took the place of Celestine, the most holy Archbishop of Rome." Cyril also directed the order of the business, either in person, as when he explained the chief object of the deliberations, or else through Peter, one of his priests, whom he made primicerius notarionmi. Cyril was also the first to sign the acts of the first session, and the sentence of deposition pronounced against Nestorius
In consequence of this deposition. Count Candidian became the open opponent of the Synod, and the protector of the party of Antioch, who held an unlawful council of their own under John of Antioch. Cyril notwithstanding fixed the 10th July 431 for the second session, and he presided; and the minutes mention him again as the representative of Rome. The other papal legates, who had not arrived in time for the first, were present at this second session; and they shared the presidency with Cyril, who continued to be called in the accounts the representative of the Pope. Cyril was the first to sign; after him came the legate Arcadius; then Juvenal of Jerusalem; next, the second legate Projactus; then came Flavian bishop of Philippi; and after him the third legate, the priest Philip. All the ancient documents are unanimous in affirming that Cyril presided over the Council in the name of Pope Celestine. Evagrius says the same; so Pope Vigilius in the profession of faith which he signed; and Mansuetus Bishop of Milan, in his letter to the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus. In other documents Pope Celestine and Cyril are indiscriminately called presidents of the third OEcumenical Council; the acts of the fourth assert this several times, as well as the Emperor Marcian, and in the fifth century the Armenian bishops in their letter to the Emperor Leo.
7. When we pass on to the second OEcumenical Council, it is perfectly well known and allowed that it was not presided over either by the Pope Damasus or his legate; for, as has been already said, this Council was not at first considered oecumenical, but only a general council of the Eastern Church. The first sessions were presided over by Meletius Archbishop of Antioch, who was the chief of all the bishops present, as the Archbishop of Alexandria had not arrived at the beginning. After the death of Meletius, which happened soon after the opening of the Council, it was not the Archbishop of Alexandria, but the Archbishop of Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus, who was the president, and after his resignation his successor Nectarius. This took place through the decision of the Council, which in its third session had assigned to the Bishop of new Rome — that is, Constantinople — the presidency immediately after the Bishop of old Rome.
8. The solution of the question respecting the presidency of the first OEcumenical Council is not without difficulty; and the greatest acumen has been displayed, and the most venturesome conjectures have been made, in order to prove that in the first Council, at any rate, the Pope was not the president.They have endeavoured to prove that the presidency belonged to the Emperor, who in a solemn discourse opened the series of the principal sessions, and took part in them, seated in the place of honour. But Eusebius, who was an eyewitness of the Council, and pays the greatest possible respect to the Emperor,says most explicitly: "After that (meaning after the opening discourse by the Emperor) the Emperor made way for the presidents of the Synod" ... These words prove that Constantine was simply the honorary president, as the Emperor Marcian was subsequently in the sixth session of the Council of Chalcedon; and, as a matter of course, he left to the ecclesiastical presidents the conducting of the theological discussions. In addition to the testimony of the eyewitness Eusebius, we have to the same effect the following documents: — (a.) The acts of the Council of Nicea, as far as they exist, contain the signatures of the bishops, but not that of the Emperor. And if that is true which the Emperor Basil the Macedonian said at the eighth OEcumenical Council, that "Constantine the Great had signed at Nicea after all the bishops," this proves conclusively that Constantine did not consider himself as the president proper of the Council. (b.) Besides, the Emperor was not present in person at the commencement of the Synod. It must, however, have had its presidents before the Emperor arrived; and a short sentence in Eusebius alludes to these presidents: ... "He left the management of the continuation with those who had before presided." (c.) When several complaints of the bishops against each other were presented to him, the Emperor had them all burnt, and declared that it was not becoming for him to give judgment upon priests. (d.) We will finally recall these words of the Emperor already quoted,that he was the bishop of the outward circumstances of the Church; words which entirely agree with the position in the Council of Nicea which we have assigned to him.
Who was, then, really the president of the Synod? Some have tried to solve the question by considering as president that bishop who was seated first at the right hand of the Emperor, and saluted him with a discourse when he entered the Synod. But here arise two observations : first, from the Greek word TrpoeSpoii it would appear that there were several presidents; and besides, it is not positively known who addressed the discourse to the Emperor. According to the title of the eleventh chapter of the third book of the Life of Constantine by Eusebius, and according to Sozomen, it was Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian, himself; but as he was not a bishop of any apostolic or patriarchal see, he could not possibly have had the office of president. We cannot say either with the Magdeburg Centuriators, that Eusebius was president because he was seated first on the right side; for the president sat in the middle, and not at one side; and those patriarchs who were present at the Council (we use this term although it had not begun to be employed at this period), or their representatives, were probably seated together in the middle, by the side of the Emperor, whilst Eusebius was only the first of the metropolitans seated on the right side. It is different with Eustathius Archbishop of Antioch, who, according to Theodoret pronounced the speech in question which was addressed to the Emperor. He was one of the great patriarchs; and one of his successors, John Archbishop of Antioch, in a letter to Proclus, calls him the "first of the Nicene Fathers." The Chronicle of Nicephorus expresses itself in the same way about him." He cannot, however, he considered as the only president of the Council of Nicea; for we must regard the expression of Eusebius, which is in the plural ...; and, besides, it must not be forgotten that the Patriarch of Alexandria ranked higher than the Patriarch of Antioch. To which, thirdly, it must be added, that the Nicene Council itself, in its letter to the Church of Alexandria,' says: "Your bishop will give you fuller explanation of the synodical decrees; for he has been a leader ... and participator ... in all that has been done." These words seem to give a reason for the theory of Schrockh and others, that Alexander and Eustathius were both presidents, and that they are intended by Eusebius when he speaks of the irpoeBpoi. But apart from the fact that the word Kvpiois here used only as an expression of politeness, and designates perhaps merely a very influential member of the Synod, and not the president, there is this against the theory of Schrockh, which is expressly asserted by Gelasius of Cyzicus, who wrote a history of the Council of Nicaea in the fifth century: "And Hosius was the representative of the Bishop of Rome; and he was present at the Council of Nicea, with the two Roman priests Vitus and Vincentius." The importance of this testimony has been recognised by all; therefore every means has been tried to undermine it. Gelasius, it is said, writes these words in the middle of a long passage which he borrowed from Eusebius; and he represents the matter as if he had taken these words also from the same historian. Now they are not to he found in Eusebius; therefore they have no historical value. But it must be remarked, that Gelasius does not copy servilely from Eusebius; but in different places he gives details which are not in that author, and which he had learned from other sources. Thus, after the passage concerning Hosius, he inserts some additional information about the Bishop of Byzantium. A little further on in the same chapter, he changes the number of two hundred and fifty bishops, given by Eusebius, into "three hundred and more," and that without giving the least indication that he is repeating literally the words of Eusebius. We are therefore brought to believe that Gelasius has acted in the same way as to Hosius in this passage, by introducing the information derived from another source into the passage taken from Eusebius, and not at all from having misunderstood Eusebius.
When Baronius and several other Catholic ecclesiastical historians assign to the papal legate Hosius the honour of the presidency, they are supported by several authorities for this opinion besides Gelasius. Thus, S. Athanasius, in his Apologia de fuga thus expresses himself about Hosius: ... "Of what synod was he not president?" Theodoret speaks just in the same way ... . Socrates, in giving the list of the principal members of the Council of Nicea writes it in the following order: "Hosius, Bishop of Cordova; Vitus and Vincentius, priests of Rome; Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria; Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch; Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem." We see that he follows the order of rank: he would therefore never have placed the Spanish bishop, Hosius, before the great patriarchs of the East, if he had not been the representative of the Pope.
An examination of the signatures of the Council of Nicea leads us again to the same conclusion. It is true that there are many variations to be found in these signatures, if several manuscripts are consulted, and that these manuscripts are often faulty and defective, as Tillemont has conclusively shown; but in spite of these defects, it is a very significant fact, that in every copy, without one exception, Hosius and the two Roman priests sign the first, and after them Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria signs. On this subject the two lists of signatures given by Mansi may be consulted, as well as the two others given by Gelasius: in these latter Hosius expressly signs in the name of the Church, of Rome, of the Churches of Italy, of Spain, and of the West; the two Roman priests appear only as his attendants. In Mansi's two lists, it is true, nothing indicates that Hosius acted in the Pope's name, whilst we are informed that the two Roman priests did so. But this is not so surprising as it might at first sight appear, for these Roman priests had no right to sign for themselves: it was therefore necessary for them to say in whose name they did so; whilst it was not necessary for Hosius,who as a bishop had a right of his own.
Schrockh says that Hosius had his distinguished position on account of his great influence with the Emperor; but this reasoning is very feeble. The bishops did not sign according as they were more or less in favour with Constantine. If such order had been followed, Eusebius of Caesarea would have been among the first. It is highly important to remark the order in which the signatures of the Council were given. The study of the lists proves that they followed the order of provinces: the metropolitan signed first, and after him the suffragans; the metropolitan of another province followed, and then his suffragan bishops, etc. The enumeration of the provinces themselves was in no particular order: thus the province of Alexandria came first, then the Thebaid and Libya, then Palestine and Phoenicia; not till after that the province of Antioch, etc. At the head of each group of signatures was always written the name of the ecclesiastical province to which they belonged; and this is omitted only in the case of Hosius and the two Roman priests. They signed first, and without naming a diocese. It will perhaps be objected, that as the Synod was chiefly composed of Greek bishops, they allowed the Westerns to sign first out of consideration for them; but this supposition is inadmissible, for at the end of the lists of the signatures of the Council are found the names of the representatives of two ecclesiastical provinces of the Latin Church. Since Gaul and Africa are placed at the end, they would certainly have been united to the province of Spain, if Hosius had represented that province only, and had not attended in a higher capacity. Together with the two Roman priests, he represented no particular church, but was the president of the whole Synod: therefore the name of no province was added to his signature — a fresh proof that we must recognise in him and his two colleagues the TTpoeSpoi spoken of by Eusebius. The analogy of the other OEcumenical councils also brings us to the same conclusion; particularly that of the Council of Ephesus, in which Cyril of Alexandria, an otherwise distinguished bishop, who held the office of papal legate, like Hosius at Nicea, signed first, before all the other legates who came from Italy.
It would be superfluous, in the consideration of the question which is now occupying us, to speak of the oecumenical councils held subsequently to these eight first, since no one doubts that these more recent councils were presided over either by the Pope or his legates. We will therefore conclude the discussion of this point with the remark, that if in some national councils the Emperor or Kings were presidents, it was either an honorary presidency only, or else they were mixed councils assembled for State business as well as for that of the Church.
The Robber Synod of Ephesus, which was held in 449,departed from the rule of all the oecumenical councils in the matter of the presidency; and it is well to mention this Synod, because at first it was regarded as an oecumenical council. We have before said that the presidency of it was refused to the Pope's legates; and by order of the Emperor Theodosius Il, who had been deceived, it was bestowed upon Dioscurus of Alexandria. But the sensation produced by this unusual measure, and the reasons given at Chalcedon by the papal legates for declaring this Synod of Ephesus to be invalid, indisputably prove that we may here apply the well known axiom, exc&ptio firmat regulam.
No comments:
Post a Comment