of St. Gregory, were years of trouble, confusion, and disaster: "the stars
fell from heaven, and the powers of the heavens were shaken." The Western
empire was overthrown; barbarians and heretics obtained the mastery in
Italy, and generally in the West; there was but one fixed and central
authority to which the eyes of churchmen could turn with hope and
confidence in the whole West, that of the Roman Pontiff.
I select the following points as bearing on our subject:--
In the year 536 we have one of those rare instances in which the Primacy of
Rome is seen acting on the Eastern Church, but in perfect accordance with
the Canons and the Patriarchal system. The Pope Agapetus had been compelled
by Theodatus, king of the Goths, to proceed to Constantinople, in order
that he might, if possible, prevail upon Justinian not to attempt the
recovery of Italy. Not having wherewith to pay the expenses of his journey,
he had been compelled to borrow money on the sacred vessels of St. Peter's
Church. On arriving at Constantinople he refused to see the new Patriarch
Anthimus, or to receive him to his communion, both because he was suspected
of heresy, and had been translated from the See of Trebisond. Anthimus
refused to appear in the Council that the Pope held at Constantinople to
judge him; so he was deposed, and returned his pallium to the Emperor.
Mennas was elected in his stead by the Emperor, with the approbation of all
the Clergy and the people, and the Pope consecrated him in the church of
St. Mary. "Pope Agapetus wrote a synodal letter to Peter, Patriarch of
Jerusalem, to acquaint him with what he had done in this Council. 'When we
arrived,' said he, 'at the court of the Emperor, we found the See of
Constantinople usurped, contrary to the Canons, by Anthimus Bishop of
Trebisond. He even refused to quit the error of Eutyches. Therefore, after
having waited for his repentance, we declare him unworthy of the name of
Catholic and Bishop, until he fully receive the doctrine of the Fathers.
You ought likewise to reject the rest whom the Holy See has condemned. We
are astonished that you approved this injury done to the See of
Constantinople, instead of informing us of it; and we have repaired it by
the ordination of Mennas, who is the first of the Eastern Church ordained
by the hands of our See.'"[111] I find this Pope presently called by the
Easterns, 'Father of fathers,' 'Archbishop of ancient Rome,' 'Ecumenical
Patriarch.' This latter title is also given to Mennas. I shall have more to
say about it hereafter; but it is remarkable that it was first given, so
far as we have any record, to Dioscorus,[112] by a Bishop in some complaint
made to him at the Latrocinium of Ephesus; but Justinian gives to the
Patriarch of Constantinople the title, "to the most holy and blessed
Archbishop of this royal city, and Ecumenical Patriarch."[113]
The Pope shortly after dies at Constantinople, and a Council is held, at
which the Patriarch Mennas presides, the Bishops who had accompanied the
defunct Pope taking rank after him. He writes to the Patriarch Peter of
Jerusalem, and informs him of the acts of this Council. Peter assembles his
Council at Jerusalem: the procedure which took place at Constantinople was
there found canonical, and the deposition of Anthimus was confirmed. Here
the same facts which prove the Pope's Primacy refute his Supremacy: and
this is not an isolated incident, but one link in a vast and uninterrupted
chain of evidence.
I find in the laws of the Emperor Justinian just at the same time, looking
at them merely as facts, a full confirmation and recognition of the
Episcopal and Patriarchal constitution of the Church. In 538, the Emperor,
in an edict, addressing the Patriarch Mennas, says, "Wherefore we exhort
you to assemble all the Bishops who are in this imperial city ... and
oblige them all to anathematize by writing the impious Origen ... that your
Blessedness send copies of what you do on this subject to all the other
Bishops, and to all the superiors of monasteries.... We have written as
much to Pope Vigilius and the other Patriarchs".... "The Patriarch Mennas,
and the Bishops who were at Constantinople, subscribed to this: it was then
sent to Pope Vigilius, to Zoilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to Ephrem of
Antioch, and to Peter of Jerusalem, who all subscribed to it".... "There
are three great laws of the year 511, of which the first regulates
ordinations:" those of the Bishops were still in the hands of the several
clergy, laity, and Metropolitans.... "The second law of the 18th March
enacts, that the four General Councils shall have the force of law, that
the Pope of Rome is the first of all the Bishops, and after him the Bishop
of Constantinople."--"Bishops cannot be called to appear against their will
before secular judges for any cause whatsoever. If Bishops of the same
province have a difference together, they shall be judged by the
Metropolitan, accompanied by the other Bishops of the province, _and may
appeal to the Patriarch, but not beyond_. Likewise if an individual, clerk
or lay, has a matter against his Bishop. The Metropolitan can only be tried
before the Patriarch."--"Simony is forbidden ... still it is allowed to
give for consecrations, according to ancient customs, in the following
proportion. The Pope and the four Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem, may give to the Bishops and the Clergy according to
custom, provided that it exceed not twenty pounds of gold. The
Metropolitans and the other Bishops may give a hundred gold solidi for
their enthronement," &c.[114]
So, again: "Therefore let the most holy Patriarchs of each Diocese propose
these things to the most holy Churches under them, and make known to the
Metropolitans, most beloved of God, what we have ratified. Let these again
set it forth in the most holy Metropolitan Church, and notify it to the
Bishops under them. But let each of these propose it in his own Church,
that no one in our commonwealth be ignorant of it."[115]
"We charge the most blessed Archbishops and Patriarchs, that is, of elder
Rome, and Constantinople, and Alexandria, and Theopolis and
Jerusalem."[116]
But Pope Pelagius I. himself says: "As often as any doubt ariseth to any
concerning an Universal Council, in order to receive account of what they
do not understand--let them recur to the Apostolical Sees.--Whosoever then
is divided from the Apostolical Sees, there is no doubt that he is in
schism."[117]
St. Augustin had said long before, "What hath the See of the Roman Church
done to thee, in which Peter sat, in which Anastasius sitteth now: or of
the Church of Jerusalem, in which James sat, and where now John sitteth:
with which we are joined in Catholic unity, and from which ye in impious
fury have separated."[118]
We now come to the dark and sad history of Pope Vigilius. And here I am
glad that another can speak for me. Bossuet says: "The acts of the Second
Council of Constantinople, the fifth general, under Pope Vigilius and the
Emperor Justinian, will prove that the decrees of the third and fourth
Councils were understood in the same sense by the fifth as we have
understood them. And this Council received the account of them near at
hand, and transmitted it to us."[119]
"The three chapters were the point in question; that is, respecting
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret's writings against Cyril, and the letter
of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian. The question was whether that
letter had been approved in the Council of Chalcedon. So much was admitted
that it had been read there, and that Ibas, after anathematizing Nestorius,
had been received by the Council. Some contended that his person only was
spared; others that his letter also was approved. Thus inquiry was made at
the fifth Council how writings on the faith were wont to be approved in
former Councils. The acts of the third and fourth Council, those which we
have mentioned above respecting the letter of St. Cyril and of St. Leo,
were set forth. Then the holy Council declared--'It is plain, from what has
been recited, in what manner the holy Councils are wont to approve what is
brought before them. For, great as was the dignity of those holy men who
wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or
without inquiry, nor without taking cognisance that they were in all things
agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which
they were compared.' But the acts proved that this course was not pursued
in the case of the letter of Ibas; they inferred, therefore, most justly,
that that letter had not been approved. So, then, it is certain, from the
third and fourth Councils, the fifth so declaring and understanding it,
that letters approved by the Apostolic See, such as was that of Cyril, or
even proceeding from it, as that of Leo, were received by the holy Councils
not simply, nor without inquiry."
Pope Vigilius afterwards, when consenting to this Council, "acknowledges
that the letter of St. Leo was not approved at the Council of Chalcedon
until it had been examined and found conformable to the faith of the three
preceding Councils; and this avowal is the more important in the mouth of a
Pope."[120]
"Again, in the same fifth Council the acts against the letter of Nestorius
are read, in which the Fathers of Ephesus plainly pronounce, 'that the
letter of Nestorius is in no respect agreeable to the faith which was set
forth at Nicea.' So this letter also was rejected, not simply, but, as was
equitable, after examination; and Ibas condemned, who stated that Nestorius
had been rejected by the Council of Ephesus without examination and
inquiry.
"The holy Fathers proceed to do what the Bishops at Chalcedon would have
done, had they undertaken the examination of Ibas' letter. They compare the
letters with the acts of Ephesus and Chalcedon. The holy Council
declared--'The comparison made proves, beyond a doubt, that the letter
which Ibas is said to have written is, in all respects, opposed to the
definition of the right faith, which the Council of Chalcedon set forth.
All the Bishops cried out, 'We all say this; the letter is heretical.'
Thus, therefore, is it proved by the fifth Council that our holy Fathers in
Ecumenical Councils pronounce the letters read, whether of Catholics or
heretics, or even of Roman Pontiffs, to be orthodox or heretical, according
to the same procedure, after legitimate cognisance, the truth being
inquired into, and then cleared up; and upon these premises judgment given.
"What! you will say, with no distinction, and with minds equally inclined
to both parties? Indeed we have said, and shall often repeat, that there
was a presumption in favour of the decrees of orthodox Pontiffs; but in
Ecumenical Councils, where judgment is to be passed in matter of faith,
that they were bound no longer to act upon presumption, but on the truth
clearly and thoroughly ascertained.
"Such were the acts of the fifth Council. This it learnt from the third and
fourth Councils, and approved; and in this argument we have brought at once
in favour of our opinion the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus,
Chalcedon, and the second Constantinopolitan."[121]
The point here taken up by Bossuet, and proved upon indisputable authority,
is of the greatest importance, viz. that the decree of a Roman Pontiff, _de
fide_, and he, perhaps, the greatest of the whole number, was judged by a
General Council, and only admitted when it was found conformable to
antiquity. It settles, in fact, the whole question, that the Bishop of Rome
is indeed possessed of the First See, and Primate of all Christendom; but
that he is not the sole depository of Christ's power in the Church, which
is, in truth, the Papal idea, laid down by St. Gregory the Seventh, and
acted upon since. The difference between these two ideas is the difference
between the Church of the Fathers and the present Latin Communion in the
matter of Church government, in which they are wide as the poles asunder.
The history of Pope Vigilius further confirms the truth of what we have
said. Bossuet proceeds: "In the same fifth Council the following acts
support our cause.
"The Emperor Justinian desired that the question concerning the
above-mentioned three Chapters should be considered in the Church. He
therefore sent for Pope Vigilius to Constantinople. There he not long after
assembled a Council. The Orientals thought it of great moment that these
Chapters should be condemned, against the Nestorians, who were raising
their heads to defend them; Vigilius, with the Occidentals, feared lest
thus occasion should be taken to destroy the authority of the Council of
Chalcedon; because it was admitted that Theodoret and Ibas had been
received in that Council, whilst Theodore, though named, was let go without
any mark of censure. Though then both parties easily agreed as to the
substance of the faith, yet the question had entirely respect to the faith,
it being feared by the one party lest the Nestorian, by the other lest the
Eutychean, enemies of the Council of Chalcedon should prevail.
"From this struggle many accusations have been brought against Vigilius,
which have nothing to do with us. I am persuaded that everything was done
by Vigilius with the best intent, the Westerns not enduring the
condemnation of the Chapters, and things tending to a schism." The facts
here alluded to, but for obvious reasons avoided by Bossuet, are as
follows, very briefly. Vigilius on the 11th of April, 548, issues his
'Judicatum' against the three Chapters, saving the authority of the Council
of Chalcedon. Thereupon the Bishops of Africa, Illyria, and Dalmatia, with
two of his own confidential Deacons, withdraw from his communion. In the
year 551, the Bishops of Africa, assembled in Council, excommunicate him,
for having condemned the three Chapters. At length the Pope publicly
withdraws his 'Judicatum.' While the Council is sitting at Constantinople
he publishes his 'Constitutum,' in which he condemns certain propositions
of Theodore, but spares his person; the same respecting Theodoret; but with
respect to Ibas, he declares his letter was pronounced orthodox by the
Council of Chalcedon. Bossuet goes on: "however this may be, so much is
clear that Vigilius, though invited, declined being present at the Council;
that nevertheless the Council was held without him; that he published a
'Constitutum' in which he disapproved of what Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas
were said to have written against the faith; but decreed that their name
should be spared, because they were considered to have been received by the
fourth Council, or to have died in the communion of the Church, and to be
reserved to the judgment of God. Concerning the letter of Ibas, he
published the following, that, understood in the best and most pious sense,
it was blameless; and concerning the three Chapters generally, he ordered
that after his present declaration Ecclesiastics should move no further
question.
"Such was the decree of Vigilius, issued upon the authority with which he
was invested. And the Council, after his constitution, both raised a
question about the three Chapters, and decided that question was properly
raised concerning the dead, and that the letter of Ibas was manifestly
heretical and Nestorian, and contrary in all things to the faith of
Chalcedon, and that they were altogether accursed, who defended the impious
Theodore of Mopsuestia, or the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, or the
impious letter of Ibas defending the tenets of Nestorius; and who did not
anathematize it, but said it was correct.
"In these latter words they seemed not even to spare Vigilius, although
they did not mention his name. And it is certain their decree was confirmed
by Pelagius the Second, Gregory the Great, and other Roman Pontiffs....
These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing
the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the faith, the decrees of sacred
Councils prevailed over the decrees of Pontiffs, and that the letter of
Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff, could
nevertheless be proscribed as heretical."
Compare with this history the following remark of De Maistre, "that Bishops
separated from the Pope, and in contradiction with him, are superior to
him, is a proposition to which one does all the honour possible in calling
it only extravagance."[122]
After all this Fleury says: "At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to
the advice of the Council, and six months afterwards wrote a letter to the
Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in
charity in dividing from his brethren. He adds, that one ought not to be
ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings forward the
example of St. Augustin. He says, that, after having better examined the
matter of the three chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. 'We
recognise for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned
them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or by others
for the defence of the three chapters.'"[123]
Nor can I think it a point of little moment that Bishops of Rome were at
different times deposed or excommunicated by other Bishops. As in the
second century the Eastern Bishops disregard St. Victor's excommunication
respecting Easter; and in the third St. Firmilian in Asia, and St. Cyprian
in Africa, disregard St. Stephen's excommunication in the matter of
rebaptizing heretics; so when the Bishops of the Patriarchate of Antioch
found that Pope Julius had received to communion St. Athanasius, and others
whom they had deposed, they proceeded to depose him, with Hosius and the
rest.[124] This was in the fourth century. In the fifth, Dioscorus, at the
Latrocinium of Ephesus, attempts to excommunicate St. Leo. In the sixth, as
we have just seen, the Bishops of Africa, Illyria, and Dalmatia, all of the
West, separate Pope Vigilius from their communion, and the former
afterwards solemnly excommunicate him. It matters not that in all these
cases the Bishops were wrong; I quote these acts merely to prove that they
esteemed the Bishop of Rome the first of all Bishops indeed, yet subject to
the Canons like themselves, and only of equal rank. For on the present
Papal theory, such an act, as we have seen le Pere Lacordaire affirm, would
be merely suicidal,--pure insanity. It is in utter contradiction to the
notion of an ecclesiastical monarchy.
In like manner we find portions of the Church, as that of Constantinople,
again and again out of communion with the Roman Pontiff, but they do not
therefore cease to be parts of the true Church. So Gieseler states that in
consequence of jealousies about the condemning the three Chapters the
Archbishops of Aquileia, with their Bishops, were out of communion with
Rome from A.D. 568 to 698.[125] A reconciliation takes place, and communion
is renewed. Facts of the same nature, and applying closely to our own
position, are mentioned by Bossuet;[126] viz. that the Spanish Bishops, not
having been present at, nor invited to, the sixth General Council, did not
receive it as Ecumenical, though invited to do so by the Pope of the day,
until they had themselves examined its acts, and found them accordant with
previous Councils. And as to the second Nicene, or seventh General Council,
the Gallic Bishops, with Charlemagne at their head, long refused to receive
it, though supported by the Pope, because neither they nor other
Occidentals were present at it. "Nor were they in the mean time held as
heretical or schismatical, though they differed on a point of the greatest
moment, that is, the interpretation of the precepts of the first table,
because they seemed to inquire into the matter with a good intention, not
with obstinate party spirit."[127] Yet Pope Adrian had himself written
against them.
Now all these various facts, from the first Nicene Council, converge
towards one view, for which, I think, there is as full evidence as for most
facts of history,--that the Pope, to the time of St. Gregory the Great, and
indeed long afterwards, was but the first of the Patriarchs, who, in their
own Patriarchates, enjoyed a co-ordinate and equal authority with his in
the West. I suppose De Maistre acknowledges as much in his own way, when he
says, "The Pope is invested with five very distinct characters; for he is
Bishop of Rome, Metropolitan of the Suburbican Churches, Primate of Italy,
Patriarch of the West, and, lastly, Sovereign Pontiff. The Pope has never
exercised over the other Patriarchates any powers save those resulting from
this last; so that except in some affair of high importance, some striking
abuse, or some appeal in the greater causes, the Sovereign Pontiffs mixed
little in the ecclesiastical administration of the Eastern Churches. And
this was a great misfortune, not only for them, but for the states where
they were established. It may be said that the Greek Church, from its
origin, carried in its bosom a germ of division, which only completely
developed itself at the end of twelve centuries, but which always existed
under forms less striking, less decisive, and so endurable."[128] The
confession of one who travesties antiquity so outrageously as De Maistre is
curious at least:--and now let us proceed to the testimony of St. Gregory.