“There must be a visible head to the Church, or everything will spin out of control. There will be no agreement on faith or morals. That is why Jesus installed St. Peter as the supreme head of the Church, and each Pope since then has inherited his authority to govern. Submit to Rome!”
As an Orthodox Christian with an online presence (thanks to writing for this blog), I get multiple versions of that message every single week from Roman Catholics. Even Roman Catholics who are bitter opponents of Pope Francis, often still tell us Orthodox to, “Submit to Rome!” Sedevacantists, who believe that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958, also tell us to submit to Rome. Not current Rome, mind you, as that is full of heretics. But to the historic Roman Papacy and Roman Tradition. Whatever that means and however one goes about doing that.
And round and round it goes.
According to most proponents of the Roman Catholic concepts of Papal Supremacy and infallibility, both doctrines were known and followed in the Church of the 1st Millennium. One thing is certainly clear, many Roman Popes in the 1st Millennium did have a high opinion of the inherent authority of their office. The question is, however, did the rest of the Church in the 1st Millennium share that opinion?
Why does it matter how the Church outside Rome viewed the Papacy? Because to be part of the Catholic Faith, as articulated by St. Vincent of Lérins in the 5th Century, “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”
Was the unchallenged authority and infallibility of the Roman Papacy “believed everywhere, always, by all” in the 1st Millennium? Let’s look at that question across several different areas: the relationship of the Papacy to Ecumenical Councils, the historical excommunication / deposition of Popes, and a brief examination of the record of the Papacy in maintaining Church unity.
Ecumenical Councils
According to Vatican I, the Pope has supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, including supreme teaching powers that are preserved free from error.
Below is a short summary on Papal authority as articulated by Vatican I in the 19th Century:
The statement on the pope’s authority was approved only after long and heated debate both preceding and during the council. The decree states that the true successor of St. Peter has full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church; that he has the right of free communication with the pastors of the whole church and with their flocks; and that his primacy includes the supreme teaching power to which Jesus Christ added the prerogative of papal infallibility, whereby the pope is preserved free from error when he teaches definitively that a doctrine concerning faith or morals is to be believed by the whole church.
Many Roman Catholic apologists assert that Vatican I did not formulate anything new, but only articulated what had always been believed. That includes supremacy over Church Councils, even over the “Ecumenical Councils” of the 1st Millennium.
Below is a Roman Catholic perspective on the relationship between Ecumenical Councils and the Papacy:
A council in opposition to the pope is not representative of the whole Church, for it neither represents the pope who opposes it, nor the absent bishops, who cannot act beyond the limits of their dioceses except through the pope. A council not only acting independently of the Vicar of Christ, but sitting in judgment over him, is unthinkable in the constitution of the Church.
In normal times, when according to the Divine constitution of the Church, the pope rules in the fullness of his power, the function of councils is to support and strengthen his rule on occasions of extraordinary difficulties arising from heresies schisms, relaxed discipline, or external foes. General councils have no part in the ordinary normal government of the Church.
As a matter of fact, the older councils, especially those of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), were not convened to decide on questions of faith still open, but to give additional weight to, and secure the execution of, papal decisions previously issued and regarded as fully authoritative.
A Pope “ruling in the fullness of his power” is above any council, whose job is to support what the Pope says. Another way this absolute power is described is in Roman Canon Law 1404, “The First See is judged by none (Latin: Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur)”. In other words, there is no court or tribunal above the Pope than can condemn him, depose him, or annul his decrees.
Sentiments along the above lines were certainly expounded by Popes in the 9th Century, with similar sentiments having been written by earlier Popes. But did the rest of the Church believe this in the 1st Millennium?
To examine that, let’s go back to the 5th Century, and look at the situation with the so-called “Robber Council” of Ephesus and the subsequent Council of Chalcedon. As we do, please bear in mind the quote above, from a Roman Catholic perspective, that Chalcedon was not called to decide any open question of Christian Faith, but merely to, “give additional weight to, and secure the execution of, papal decisions previously issued and regarded as fully authoritative.”
If that were true, then you would expect to find a Council of Chalcedon that merely accepted the Pope’s teaching on Christology and then called it a day. In truth, that is exactly the sequence of events one finds in the sort of “standard narrative” of Chalcedon put forward by Roman Catholic apologists. According to the Romane Catholic party line, Pope Leo rejected the 449 AD Second Council of Ephesus calling it a “robber council”. As a result, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD was called to finally settle the ongoing disputes over the nature / natures and personhood of Christ. At Chalcedon in 451 AD, the Tome of Leo essentially ended all debate, as it was an authoritative pronouncement of Pope Leo. The so-called tome was a letter written by Pope Leo I to Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in 449 AD. The letter was a response to the heresy of Eutyches (a major subject of discussion at 2nd Ephesus) and that of Nestorius. The letter expounded Pope Leo’s doctrinal explanation of the natures of Christ. When it was read at Chalcedon, shouts went up from the bishops, “It is Peter who says this through Leo. This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles. Leo and Cyril teach the same thing.”
For many Roman Catholic apologists, the rejection of Ephesus, convening of Chalcedon, and the acceptance of the Tome of Leo prove that the supreme authority and infallibility of the Papacy were well-established facts in the 5th Century.
But is that really true?
The Second Council of Ephesus was convened by Roman Emperor Theodosius II (ruling from Constantinople) in 449 AD. It was convened with the agreement of Pope Leo, but as were all Ecumenical Councils of the 1st Millennium, 2nd Ephesus was an imperial affair and not a Papal one. The council was under the control of Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria, who ignored the Roman legates present as representatives of Pope Leo, and did not read the letter from Leo to Flavian (the tome) that would eventually play such an important role in the story of Chalcedon.
Evidently, an Orthodox Christian Patriarch in the 5th Century AD did not realize that his only role at a council was to support, and transmit, whatever he received from Rome. Instead, he stubbornly insisted on thinking for himself, and felt that he was well within his rights to ignore the opinions of Pope Leo on the questions at hand.
It is true that Pope Leo, upon learning of the actions of the council, condemned it. Pope Leo called it the Latrocinium (Robber Council). This next fact is really important, however. Emperor Theodosis II completely ignored the position of Pope Leo concerning 2nd Ephesus.
An Orthodox Catholic Roman Emperor was apparently unaware that his council needed the approval of the Roman Pope. Leo’s opposition to 2nd Ephesus was, in fact, ignored until after Theodosius died in a horse accident on July 28, 450 AD. His death changed the situation radically. Theodosius’ sister, Pulcheria, returned to imperial power and married the general Marcian, who became the new emperor. The imperial couple opposed both the teachings of Dioscurus and Archimandrite Eutyches.
To clarify the Orthodox Faith and end the disputes, Marcian called for a new council which was held in 451 AD in Chalcedon. Note that the council was called by the Emperor, and not by the Roman Pope. At this time in history, the Roman Pope could not convene a general council of the whole Church.
Note also that the council was called because the imperial couple, Marcian and Pulcheria, rejected the teachings of Dioscurus and Eutyches, and not because Pope Leo had rejected 2nd Ephesus.
In a curious incident, Pope Leo and his legates to Chalcedon demanded that Theodoret of Cyrus, an influential theologian of the School of Antioch and a Christian bishop, be seated at the council. Theodoret had been condemned as a heretic at 2nd Ephesus. His heretical Christology was especially clear in his attacks against St. Cyril’s Twelve Chapters. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon completely ignored Leo’s opinions on the matter, and refused to seat Theodoret as he was still under the condemnation of 2nd Ephesus. Theodoret was allowed to sit only as an accuser of Dioscorus. The Council only lifted Theodoret’s excommunication when he anathematized Nestorius, and accepted both the Third Ecumenical Council and the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril.
In the matter of Theodoret, we see a Roman Pope supporting a condemned, unrepentant heretic. Further, we see that the support of the Roman Pope Leo for Theodoret carried no weight at all with the Fathers of Chalcedon.
Eventually the Tome of Leo was read at the Council, as noted above, and a great cry did go up. Let us remind ourselves what that outcry was, “It is Peter who says this through Leo. This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles. Leo and Cyril teach the same thing.”
Wait a second. Leo was the infallible Pope. The supreme head of the entire Church, if one believes in the veracity of the Roman Catholic position concerning the Papacy at this time. Yet, his letter had not been read at 2nd Ephesus. Evidently, Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria didn’t get the memo that he was supposed to do whatever the Pope of Rome had instructed him to do. The tome was read at Chalcedon, and was generally applauded as an Orthodox Christological statement. However, not because it was written by the Roman Pope, the successor of Peter empowered to infallibly pronounce teaching binding on all Christians. Rather, it was judged Orthodox because the teaching therein agreed with the previously accepted work on the natures of Christ known as the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril.
The following is taken from an article by Fr. John Romanides:
Theologians of the Vatican have been supporting their position that Leo of Rome and his Tome became the basis of the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of 451 which, according to them, supposedly corrected the monophysitic and theopassion tendencies of Cyril of Alexandria. But the reality of the matter was that some 50 bishops refused to sign Leo’s Tome claiming that it did not agree with the Synodical Letters of Cyril against Nestorius which were the basis of the decision of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431. They were given five days to examine the Tome of Leo with the said letters of Cyril. They all agreed that Leo indeed agrees with Cyril. Their statements to this effect are individually recorded in the minutes.
So Cyril and not Leo was the key to the Council of Chalcedon. Evidently the Vatican has been keeping this fact quiet since it makes a mockery of so-called Papal infallibility. Contrary to these minutes of Chalcedon are the scholars who claim that the Council of Chalcedon modified the Monophysitic tendencies of Cyril and supposedly de-emphasized the theopassianism of his Twelve Chapters. But Cyril’s Two Synodical Letters to Nestorius and his 433 letter to John of Antioch are included in the Horos of Chalcedon “to which have been adapted the Tome of Leo….”
St. Cyril had been the Patriarch of Alexandria, not the Roman Pope. Yet, the tome of the Roman Pope was judged against the standard of St. Cyril’s teaching, not the other way around. So much for the oft repeated Roman Catholic demand of, “submit to the Apostolic See, which cannot err.”
The Church Fathers gathered at Chalcedon were keenly looking for error in the Tome of Leo. In fact, 50 of the bishops present at Chalcedon did not at first agree with the tome, and so were given time to examine it. Evidently an entire of Council of Orthodox Bishops did not realize that, as Supreme Roman Pontiff, Pope Leo’s teaching was immune to their judgment. The truth of how the Tome of Leo was received and judged by Chalcedon is often obscured by Roman Catholic propaganda. In a different article, Fr. John Romanides expressed the shock he felt when he first discovered what really happened at Chalcedon:
This opened the way to the position that the Tome of Leo had supposedly become the standard of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. This was followed by the position that the Fifth Ecumenical Council returned to Cyril’s Twelve Chapters in order to please the Non-Chalcedonians. Having studied at Yale University under specialist in the History of Dogma, one may appreciate the shock this writer had, while preparing for Aarhus 1964, when he saw in the minute’s of Chalcedon the debate about whether the Tome or Leo agrees with the Twelve Chapters of Cyril. Hypatius’ claim that Chalcedon supposedly avoided the use of Cyril’s Twelve Chapters because it uses hypostasis as synonymous with physis, obliges one to realize that Chalcedon did no such thing, since Cyril became the judge of Leo’s Orthodoxy. So Chalcedon both accepted the Alexandrian tradition of terms, but also that of Rome, Cappadocia and Antioch.
In the end, Chalcedon accepted the Tome of Leo, definitively declared that Jesus Christ has two natures, divine and human, in one person (Hypostatic Union), and deposed Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria. The “Vicar of Christ” and the Emperor both put their seals of approval on the work at Chalcedon. So that was that, right? Done deal, on to the next controversy?
Not hardly. The Theological debate after Chalcedon was even worse than the one leading up to it. Surprisingly, those who rejected Chalcedon continued to play a significant, sometimes even dominant, role in the 5th Century Orthodox Church (which included both East and West at the time). This is a fact that is often lost in the “official Roman Catholic narrative”.
The following is from an article titled After Chalcedon – Orthodoxy in the 5th/6th Centuries:
It seems to be received as an historical fact that after the Council of Chalcedon those Christians who refused to accept its decisions and doctrinal statements were immediately isolated and rapidly withdrew into their own communion. This opinion is far from reflecting historical reality, and yet it is often presumed to be true by Oriental Orthodox as much as Chalcedonian Orthodox.
It fails to take full account of the truth that for a Council to be Ecumenical it must be received by the whole Church, and ignores the reality that large numbers of Orthodox Christians rejected it, and continued to oppose it. This opinion assumes that because one group of Orthodox defined the Faith in a particular way any who disagreed with that definition must of necessity have separated themselves from the Faith and therefore from the Church. Yet in the years after Chalcedon, and throughout the 6th century, those who rejected Chalcedon continued to play a significant, and at times dominant, role in the Orthodox Church.
There were three main factors complicating the theological debate that took place after Chalcedon. Rome had been lost to the barbarians, there was a growing sense of national identity in the various parts of the Empire, and the great Sees were continually in competition with each other. The Emperors had to balance the desire to regain Rome with the need to try and preserve unity within the Empire of the East. Theological divisions were no help and a uniform Christology was always one of the Emperors underlying ambitions. At times this meant that political policies impinged on theological and ecclesiastical affairs.
Thus Marcian supported Chalcedon and it must have appeared to him that there was the prospect of unity in the Church based on its Christological statement. But if that was indeed his opinion then he was quickly proved wrong. Pope St. Dioscorus may well have withstood his enemies alone, but the people of Alexandria were as staunch defenders of Cyrilline Orthodoxy as any of their bishops, and they were the first to make plain that the See of Alexandria was united in opposition to Chalcedon. When Proterius was appointed Patriarch in place of the exiled Pope Dioscorus he was greeted by a rioting crowd of Alexandrians. Opposition was not limited to Egypt. In Jerusalem the monks rejected Juvenal who had submitted to Chalcedon and appointed Theodosius in his place. The Emperor acted to replace Juvenal with another bishop who accepted Chalcedon but Theodosius had already consecrated several bishops who maintained opposition to Chalcedon.
The Papacy was simply in no position to “force” the whole Church to accept Chalcedon, as the vast majority of Christians did not even believe the Roman Pope had that kind of authority. Obviously, the Emperor was not in a position to dictate adherence to Chalcedon either. In the aftermath of Chalcedon, we see that even the common people of the Empire felt entitled to reject (sometimes violently) a council based on their own judgment, even if that ran contrary to both Roman Pope and Roman Emperor. The Roman Catholic idea that a council is judged solely by the Pope clearly did not exist in the 5th Century.
During the short reign of Emperor Basiliscus (October 475–June 477 AD) an encyclical was sent to all the bishops throughout the empire calling upon them to anathematize the Tome of Leo along with everything done at Chalcedon considered to be innovations beyond the Faith of the Council of Nicea. Over 500 bishops subscribed to this letter, including the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. The whole ecclesiastical situation had now changed. The Chalcedonians, including the Roman Pope, were on the defensive.
For the Chalcedonian side, things got worse. A council was called at Ephesus and a large number of bishops gathered under Patriarchs Timothy of Alexandria and Peter of Antioch to anathematize Chalcedon. When concluded, a letter was written to the Emperor which said:
“We have anathematized and do anathematize the Tome of Leo and the decrees of Chalcedon, which have been the cause of much blood shedding and confusion, and tumult, and division and strifes in all the world. For we are satisfied with the doctrine and faith of the Apostles and the holy Fathers, the Three Hundred and Eighteen; to which also the illustrious Council of the One Hundred and Fifty in the royal city, and the two other holy Synods at Ephesus adhered, and which they confirmed.”
The Roman Pope at the time, Simplicius, was fully in support of Chalcedon. It seems few in the wider Church cared about his opinion.
After recovering the throne and deposing Basiliscus, Emperor Zeno wanted a compromise that would heal the Christological divisions in the empire. The Chalcedonian Patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, drew up a letter, called the Henoticon, addressed to “the bishops, clergy, monks and laity of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis”. The Henoticon was understood to be an imperial statement of faith which abrogated Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. Both Zeno and Patriarch Acacius no longer needed to placate Western opinion, as Rome was outside the empire after the establishment of a Vandal kingdom centered on Ravenna.
If the Roman Pope was really thought to be “supreme” over the Church at the time, then you would not expect the mere political facts on the ground to have had this kind of influence on the path chosen by Zeno and Acacius.
The text of the Henoticon does not use the phrase “two natures” and stresses the pre-eminence of the Nicene faith. It anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches and all who taught contrary to the teachings of Nicaea. The Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril were received as Orthodox. Christ’s Godhead and manhood were upheld. The teaching of St. Cyril was upheld that “both the miracles and the sufferings are those of one Person”, the Second Person of the Trinity who became Incarnate.
Pope Felix III of Rome condemned the Henoticon and excommunicated Patriarch Acacius in 484 AD, causing a schism between the East and West which would last 35 years.
Let’s pause a moment. This was the 5th Century, not the 11th, and at that early date, the vast majority of the Church clearly did not recognize the ability of the Pope in Rome to unilaterally dictate to them. Nor did they feel as if their salvation depended on being in communion with Rome, as most of the Church at the time was not. In the 5th Century, the vast majority of Orthodox Catholic Christians lived in the East and were out of communion with the Roman Pope during this 35 year time span. We can see that easily enough if you consider that, at the time, the population of Constantinople alone could have been as high as 1 million, while the population of Rome could have been as low as 25,000.
During the more than three-decades-long schism, the great Sees of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria were united and Emperor Zeno was praised as “the triumphant star of Christ from the East”. Even the more extreme opponents of Chalcedon accepted that the Henoticon contained a right confession of faith. It seemed that on this basis, perhaps at least the Eastern Church could be quieted, though Rome remained in schism.
So how did the Chalcedonian position end up becoming recognized as Orthodox truth? The Empire changed its policy and began persecuting non-Chalcedonians.
In 518 AD, Emperor Justin, a Chalcedonian, ascended to the throne. He demanded conformity in the Empire with Chalcedon. The Emperor also wanted a reunion with Rome. To effect the restoration of communion between East and West, Roman Pope Hormisdas wrote a theological formula and demanded that Justin, Patriarch of Constantinople John II, and all the Eastern bishops sign it. The acceptance of the Formula of Hormisdas by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and other Eastern Bishops, is often cited by Roman Catholic apologists as proof that the Orthodox Bishops and the Emperor accepted Papal Supremacy and infallibility in the 6th Century.
The facts suggest otherwise. The schism ended because a Chalcedonian Emperor wanted it ended badly enough to give Rome everything it had wanted for 35 years. It was imperial policy that changed, not the opinion of those within the Empire concerning the authority of the Roman Pope. This is especially obvious when you acknowledge that, despite imperial pressure, many bishops still resisted Chalcedon, often finding sanctuary in Egypt. The Pope had spoken, as had the Emperor, but resisting bishops, monks, and laity did not care.
To break resistance, imperial persecution was initiated and got progressively worse. By 525 AD, all resisting monks were driven out of their monasteries, robbed, put in irons and subjected to various tortures. Faithful Orthodox Christians who gave them shelter were treated in the same way. The wave of anti-Chalcedonian persecution caused the monasteries of Syria to break off communion with the Chalcedonian bishops. All of them signed an anathema against Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. In response, imperial soldiers were sent to expel the monks from their homes just two days before Christmas.
Under this severe persecution, the opponents of Chalcedon found themselves becoming a distinct Church from the Chalcedonian Church, though both sides still described themselves as Orthodox. A final break was avoided at that time, however, because by 534 AD the emperor had relaxed the persecution. For a short time, opponents of Chalcedon were allowed to occupy important positions, including as Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria.
Roman Catholic apologists usually leave all of the post Formula of Hormisdas messiness out of their narrative. They prefer to give the impression that everyone submitted to the Roman Pope, except for some ignorant Egyptian bishops. Case closed, problem solved. The facts radically contradict that simplistic narrative. Adherence to Chalcedon was brought about through imperial persecution, not by widespread submission to Papal Supremacy.
The final break between the opposing sides of Chalcedon occurred under Emperor Justinian. The Emperor was more interested in union with Rome and the West than in any kind of compromise with non-Chalcedonians. The Emperor deposed the non-Chalcedonian bishops, and restarted the general persecution of all resistors. Unfortunately for any future effort at unity, the non-Chalcedonian position increasingly became confused with national resistance to the Roman Empire. The result is still with us – the Orthodox Catholic Church on one side, the Oriental Orthodox Church on the other, with the Roman Catholic Church standing across the room all by herself.
Let us consider one more example of a council from a later time period before we close this topic. The Quinisext Council, also known as the Council of Trullo, was held between 691–692 AD in the East, without the presence of any representation of the Roman Pope. The immediate reaction of the See of Rome to the council was fiercely hostile. This was partly because two canons (13 and 55) explicitly criticized Roman practices such as mandatory clerical celibacy, but more generally because Rome resented being expected to retroactively approve a whole sheaf of new canons. Despite the wishes of Emperor Justinian, Pope Sergius I (687–701 AD) flatly refused to accept the council and the new canons. The East considered the council valid despite Rome’s rejection, and the Quinisext canons found their way into imperial canonical collections.
This was hundreds of years before the Great Schism. Yet even then, there were very clear differences between the Eastern and Western Churches. Despite modern claims of Papal Supremacy, Orthodox bishops in the 7th Century, just as in earlier centuries, were not unduly concerned with the opinions of the Roman Popes.
From our perspective as Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians, we owe a debt of gratitude to Rome for standing strong in favor of the true doctrine of the Hypostatic Union (Two Natures in One Person). Fortunately, Rome was a bastion of Orthodoxy for much of the 1st Millennium. That is a good lesson for Orthodox Catholic Christians to learn, especially at a time when extremely sharp criticism of anything “Western” is so common in our parishes.
On the other hand, we should also recognize that while Roman Popes maintained the true Chalcedonian Orthodox Faith, they were powerless to enforce that faith on the rest of the Church. That took imperial force, which was used to carry out a truly lamentable persecution of non-Chalcedonian clergy and laity alike. There is simply no reason to think, based on the facts, that the vast majority of Orthodox Christians in the 1st Millennium accepted Papal Supremacy or Papal Infallibility as dogmas of the Christian Faith. The power of the Papacy, as articulated by Vatican I, clearly was not believed “everywhere and by all” in the 1st Millennium.
