“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.