It’s really not clear that these synods were made per a request versus an order. There’s no conclusive evidence either way. The point is that at Pope St. Victor’s request, bishops all over the world called synods to deal with this question. This really isn’t a small thing. For one bishop to call one synod was a rather significant venture, but to have countless do so all at once is remarkable, and speaks very powerfully to at a bare minimum the influence that the bishop of Rome had over all of the bishops.
I think you’re reading too much into this request, Lazerlike42. Our Orthodox canonical tradition gives the Ecumenical Patriarch the honor of convening ecumenical councils, which I think we both agree is more important than convening numerous local synods put together. This coordinating function is a natural function for bishops who hold the various levels of primacy in the Church. Such coordination serves the unity and equality of the bishops by enabling the Church to speak more easily and forcibly with one voice. Therefore, it is a reflection of primacy, which we have never denied, and not of supremacy, which we have.
The suggestion that St. Victor’s excommunication was based on the decision of all of the synods doesn’t dimish this, and perhaps even strengthens it. Even if he did see himself as serving the consensus of the Church, the fact is that he took it upon himself to excommunicate bishops who were not under his Patriarchate, and not a soul denied his ability to do so. Some admonished him for taking so severe an action, and some begged him to reconsider, but nobody denied that he could do so. Victor certainly thought that he, as bishop of Rome, could excommunicate those not inside his Patriarchate, and nobody rejected this - that’s the bottom line.
If Pope Victor was acting out of his interpretation of the consensus of the Church, he could hardly be condemned for trying to exercise universal jurisdiction, as he would not be claiming to do anything more than enforce collegial decision. This was and is well within the rights of the holder of the primacy. However, in cases of erroneous judgment, severe rebukes for undue severity and hastiness would be given, which would be the only true mistake of such a holder of the primacy.
It’s fair to argue that I may be misinterpreting quotes, but the quotes of Flavian and Anatolius have nothing whatsoever to do with titles. They refer to objective authority. Anatolius says that the confirmation of Chalcedon rests entirely in Leo’s authority. Flavian says that a letter from Pope St. Leo will make calling a council “superfluous.” Those are explicit references to things the pope can do, and to the level of his authority, not flowery titles.
I especially enjoy the quote from Flavian. It reveals that ecumenical councils are abnormal in the life of the Church. To this day, the normative way to combat heresy is for bishops (even one exceptional bishop) to arise with clear, inspired expositions of the Orthodox Faith that will render the convening of ecumenical councils, superfluous. Only when this ideal and normative model for dealing with heresies fails, are ecumenical councils called. Thus the statement of Flavian is an advocacy for the normal response to heresy and hardly amounts to an affirmation of unique papal authority.
No Catholic has ever claimed, nor does today, that the Pope is de facto infallible. The point is that infallible means infallible. No matter how anyone tries to spin it, that’s what it means, and Patriarch John meant that the pope was infallible in at least some way. This is consistent with Agatho, writing about the same time, who clearly believed that the pope was infallible at particular times. What’s more, this is consistent with the current Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the pope.
No offense, but arguing that a vague mention of “infallibility” in relation to the Pope means your Church’s interpretation of infallibility, is rather weak. We also have references to a Roman Emperor’s faith as being such that “no error can delude your faith” and yet we don’t develop the doctrine of the infallibility of the holy Emperor of the Romans. I don’t think we should make the same leaps of application in relation to quotes about the Pope.
As far as the claim that Rome was merely a witness to the tradition that was the true arbiter of truth, Tradition, is exactly like Protestant claims that the ecumenical councils were merely witnesses to the true arbiter of the faith, the Scriptures. The problem is the same in each case - there’s no objective judge of just what the Scriptures of the Tradition says. There must be some court of final appeal, and according to the fathers, this is the bishop of Rome. They say in several places that in order to know whether one remains faithful to the tradition, one must remain in communion with the bishop of Rome.
You are correct to see similarities between appeals to a vague “Tradition” and appeals to a vague “Scripture.” However, the Tradition we appeal to is not vague, but is the same Tradition that St. Vincent of Lerins advocates as the Church’s final authority, viz., the Tradition that has been held by the Church at all times, in all places and wherever the faithful have been present. In short, we appeal to the Tradition of the Church. You see, like Catholicism, we have an ultimate authority in Orthodoxy. It’s just that our ultimate authority is the Tradition of the Church that finds expression in every age and not a Roman Pontiff who can err at any time in any area of the Faith.
There are of course other examples of this. In the doctrine of the fathers, to hold to tradition is to maintain communion with Rome.
In the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, to hold to Tradition is to maintain communion with all the apostolic Churches, where this Tradition is preserved:
“
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition, which they handed down to those to whom, they did commit the Churches?” – St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 4, 1.
Rome, as the image of the ideal apostolic church is logically singled out for emphasis by St. Irenaeus in other statements. However, his statement about agreeing with Rome means no more than this quote, advocating looking/agreeing with the other apostolic churches in order to know the truth. In fact, encouraging Christians to agree with apostolic Churches in order to maintain the Faith was a primitive form of what we know today as the Vincentian canon – believe the Tradition that has been passed down by the apostles and professed by the faithful. In order to fulfill this, communion with the apostolic churches, especially Rome, is encouraged. This obligation of communion extends to the Bishop of Rome, who, like everyone else, must conform his confession to that of the glorious, God-bearing martyrs and apostles, especially the Chiefs of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, who left their apostolic teaching in the Roman Church (and indeed of any apostolic Church they founded). A failure to do this by the Bishop of Rome results in heresy. This possibility of heresy on the part of the Pope makes it rather unlikely that your quote from St. Irenaeus and others like them are to be interpreted as advocating communion with the Bishop of Rome as the automatic, final arbiter of truth instead of advocating communion with apostolic Churches who hold to Tradition, in order to hold to Tradition ourselves, which has always been the Orthodox interpretation.
Now according to the principles you put forth of holding to tradition, the final arbiter of just what tradition is would be essentially what everyone in the Church believed, but there were times - such as prior to the Council of Nicaea - where virtually the entire Church recognized Arianism to be faithful to tradition. Something else is needed to be obedient to, such as a Council.
The great defenders of the Church during the Arian crisis used as their chief weapon the Orthodox Catholic Faith professed by the apostles and reaffirmed at the Council of Nicea. The Pope, while appealed to for help along with other bishops, wasn’t treated as an automatic arbiter of orthodox teaching during this crisis or any other.
The pope can also be that something else, and I believe history shows has been at times.
Any Orthodox bishop could be a living instrument of Holy Tradition in the condemnation of heretics and the spread of the Faith, around which the faithful gather as a bright star. This past Sunday was dedicated to that wonderful “Star of Orthodoxy”, St. Gregory Palamas. So, obviously, Orthodox bishops can be raised up to defend the Faith in an extraordinary fashion. However, our discussion is not about Popes being good defenders of the Faith, but of Popes having the power to create dogmas. We Orthodox are still waiting for examples of papal dogmas in the first millennium or even clear affirmations that such dogmatic statements could be made by the Pope.
God bless,
Adam
