M
Mystophilus
Guest
In order to clarify some historical details, I thought that it might be helpful to write a post on the significance of the church and bishop of Rome during the time of the early Church. Catholic apologists often present lists of quotations from early Church Fathers testifying to the significance of Rome. Unfortunately, some also tend to avoid those which downplay such significance, an action which can lead to an inaccurate understanding of the situation in the Church at the time. Therefore, what I will be presenting are those passages. Do not misconstrue this as an attempt to dismiss the significance of Rome: the purpose is to rebalance the scales.
As a prefatory note, it should also be mentioned that, before the beginning of the Christian era, there had been a significant lingual and cultural split between the western end of the Roman Empire, in which Latin was the language of communication, and the eastern end, in which Greek, as a result of Alexander’s earlier conquests, held that role. This difference became very important in Church history.
In particular, we will be looking at passages from the Seven Ecumenical Councils, as presented in J. P. Tanner’s translation, on a Catholic website. All of these councils were held in the Greek-speaking east. The fact that the first of these only occurred in A.D. 325 might seem surprising until we remember that Christianity spent much of its early years under Roman suppression. Once Constantine converted, it became possible to gather representatives from throughout the Church and work to establish what doctrines were held true by all. This is a very important issue: under the belief that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church from error, it was expected that any belief upon which the majority could agree must be a correct belief. In other words, the early Church was a sort of representative democracy.
As for the Roman view of the councils, it might be worth noting that Pope Gregory I said, of the Ecumenical Councils which had occurred by his time, “I confess that I accept and venerate the four councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon) in the same way as I do the four books of the holy Gospel”.
These councils began with the first synod at Nicaea in 325, attended by (approximately) 318 bishops from various churches, at least three of which were from the Latin west, but the majority of which were from the Greek east. This was normal at the time, Christianity having begun in the east. In canon 4, the Council decreed that each bishop “should be appointed by all the bishops of the province”, and that “in each province the right of confirming the proceedings belongs to the metropolitan bishop”. The metropolis was the ‘mother city’, or the largest centre in the area. Note that this canon renders each of these churches autonomous in respect to its appointments. There is a similar effect in canon 5, in which inquiries into excommunications must be held by “all the bishops of the province”: the metropolitan bishop could not excommunicate by fiat.
As a prefatory note, it should also be mentioned that, before the beginning of the Christian era, there had been a significant lingual and cultural split between the western end of the Roman Empire, in which Latin was the language of communication, and the eastern end, in which Greek, as a result of Alexander’s earlier conquests, held that role. This difference became very important in Church history.
In particular, we will be looking at passages from the Seven Ecumenical Councils, as presented in J. P. Tanner’s translation, on a Catholic website. All of these councils were held in the Greek-speaking east. The fact that the first of these only occurred in A.D. 325 might seem surprising until we remember that Christianity spent much of its early years under Roman suppression. Once Constantine converted, it became possible to gather representatives from throughout the Church and work to establish what doctrines were held true by all. This is a very important issue: under the belief that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church from error, it was expected that any belief upon which the majority could agree must be a correct belief. In other words, the early Church was a sort of representative democracy.
As for the Roman view of the councils, it might be worth noting that Pope Gregory I said, of the Ecumenical Councils which had occurred by his time, “I confess that I accept and venerate the four councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon) in the same way as I do the four books of the holy Gospel”.
These councils began with the first synod at Nicaea in 325, attended by (approximately) 318 bishops from various churches, at least three of which were from the Latin west, but the majority of which were from the Greek east. This was normal at the time, Christianity having begun in the east. In canon 4, the Council decreed that each bishop “should be appointed by all the bishops of the province”, and that “in each province the right of confirming the proceedings belongs to the metropolitan bishop”. The metropolis was the ‘mother city’, or the largest centre in the area. Note that this canon renders each of these churches autonomous in respect to its appointments. There is a similar effect in canon 5, in which inquiries into excommunications must be held by “all the bishops of the province”: the metropolitan bishop could not excommunicate by fiat.
