Milton V. Anastos
Constantinople and Rome
A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches.
M. Anastos, Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome), Ashgate Publications, Variorum Collected Studies Series, 2001. ISBN: 0 86078 840 7.
21. The theory of the pentarchy and Byzantine arguments against the Roman primacy
(a) The pentarchy(210)
Apart from traumatic experiences of this kind, however, and the rancour they engendered, there were, as we have already seen in part, theoretical considerations which led to estrangement. One of the most significant of these arose from conflicting ideas concerning the organization and administration of the Church. Specifically, papal absolutism was at variance with the Byzantine conception of the pentarchy, a scheme of ecclesiastical government which the Byzantines believed to have been established by the Ηoly Spint.(211)
Under this system, all five of the patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) were regarded as equal. The theory of the pentarchy underwent considerable revision in the course of time, and reached its highest development in the period from the eleventh century to the middle of the fifteenth. But its basic principles go back to the Emperor Justinian Ι (527-65), who often stressed the importance of all five of the patriarchates, especially in the formulation of dogma.
Like the five senses of the human body, the Byzantines maintained, none of which has ascendancy over the rest, the five partiarchates were entirely independent of each other. Together, they constituted the Church (designated as "Christ's body"), and were subject only to him as their head.(212) Each was responsible for the administration of its own affairs,(213) and no cleric in one patriarchate had the right to appeal above his own patriarch to another.(214) All questions of common interest were to be settled by joint action of the five patriarchs as determined by themselves or their representatives. Decisions were to be rendered by majority vote, and no binding oecumenical rulings could be made, Theodore the Studite and others had declared, except in this way.(215)
The pentarchy, as thus conceived, had a strongly anti-Roman orientation, since the mediaeval popes claimed the right to the final word on all matters concerning the Church, and insisted that they had the authority to judge all members of the clergy, including the patriarchs.(216) Nevertheless, Rome agreed that the pentarchy performed a necessary function, and Anastasius Bibliothecarius (ca. 817-79), who tried to usurp the papal throne in 855, and later became the principal adviser of Popes Nicholas Ι (858-67), Hadrian II (867-72), and John VIII (872-82), accepted the comparison with the five senses of the human body.(217) But he added the characteristically papal qualification that the patriarchate of Rome, which he likened to the sense of sight, ruled the other four.
(b) Byzantine arguments against the Roman primacy
The Byzantine conception of the pentarchy was associated with the view that the twelve Apostles were teachers of the whole world, and did not localize their authority in any one place.(218) This understanding of the role of the Apostles was, of course, prejudicial to the papal doctrine that the Roman Church presided over the whole of Christendom because the popes were Peter's successors. With the passage of time, as tension between the two sees grew, and bitterness increased, Byzantine polemists went still further and denied that Peter had been the chief (koryphaios) of the Apostles (all of whom they deemed to have been equal in rank)(219) or had ever been bishop of Rome.(220)
These three anti-Roman propositions proved popular in Byzantium after 1204, and were set forth with enthusiasm by Nicholas Mesarites in his debate (1206) with Thomas Morosini (the first Latin patriarch of Constantinople), by an unknown writer (who seems to have plagiarized from Mesarites, although some would identify him with the Patriarch Photius: see note 218), by Barlaam of Calabria (who at first was hostile to the popes, but ca. 1342 changed sides and became a partisan of Rome), and by others.
Even when they did not question the Roman traditions concerning Peter, however, some Byzantine theologians refused to concede that the popes were entitled to any kind of primacy whatsoever. This they did for a number of reasons. According to one argument, which goes back in essence as far as John Philoponus, the monophysite scholar of Alexandria (fl. 527-65), if Rome based its leadership in the Church on the career of Peter, then Antioch or Jerusalem should have the primacy, the former(221) because Peter had been bishop of Αntioch before he went to Rome, the latter because James, the brother of the Lord, and the first bishop of the Church, had been appointed in that city by Jesus Christ, who himself lived and worked there.(222) Rome had been the "first see," not on account of Peter or any special merit of its bishop, who was not superior to other occupants of the major episcopal sees, but only because, as the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 had noted, it had been the capital of the Roman Empire when Christianity came into being.(223)
Moreover, some said, the primacy had been bestowed upon Rome by the Roman emperors, not only by Constantine Ι (in the Dοnatio) and Justinian Ι, but also by Aurelian (270-75, erroneously designated as Gallienus), who had ruled that the church property in Antioch belonged "to those with whom the bishops of Italy and Rome should communicate."(224) Then, in turn, this primacy had been conferred in equal measure upon Constantinople, the "New Rome," when it became the seat of the imperial government.(225) The privileged position of Constantinople, it was commonly believed, had been specifically confirmed by a number of ecclesiastical canons, especially the third of Constantinople (381), the twenty-eighth οf Chalcedon (451), and the thirtysixth of the Quinisextum (692).(226)
(c) Primacy of the see of Constantinople
The equality and independence of all five patriarchates were cardinal features of
pentarchical theory as outlined above. But nearly all of the Byzantine writers who dealt with this subject assumed that the Church of Constantinople held the highest rank among the patriarchates, and had the right to govern them.
This assumption was the inevitable consequence of Byzantine political theory. For it seemed only logical that the ruler of the entire inhabited world, as the Byzantine emperor never ceased to regard himself,(227) should have the major Church of Christendom over which to preside. Confidence in the supremacy of the see of Constantinople was promoted also by the Arab invasions of the seventh century, which had overrun the lands of the eastern patriarchates (Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) and left Constantinople as the chief custodian of their authority and influence.
In addition, the natural inclination of Byzantine theologians to exalt the bishopric of Constantinople over the other patriarchates was encouraged by reflection on the numerous barbarian invasions of Italy and the fall of the western Roman Empire in 476.(228) Such thoughts led easily to the conclusion that Byzantium alone truly preserved the traditions of the Roman Empire. Similar tendencies were encouraged by the anti-Latin fervour that arose in the course of doctrinal disputes with Rome and as an aftermath of the sack of Constantinople in 1204.
Even long before 1204, Byzantine writers had been convinced that the removal of the imperial capital from Rome to Constantinople had involved a simultaneous transfer of primacy in the Church. This proposition, which goes back, in embryo, to John Philoponus,(229) was first enunciated in its most advanced form by the Patriarch Photius,(230) and was enthusiastically adopted afterwards by his successors.
In the handbook of canon law published under Photius's direction, the Church of Constantinople was pronounced to be the "head of all the Churches,"(231) as indeed the Emperor Justinian Ι had already designated it to be in the Codex Iustinianus (1224). According to another document, the Εpanagoge (ca. 883-84), a code of laws which also apparently owed much to Photius, the see of Constantinople had been assigned by the Councils first place in the Church, with the authority to hear appeals from disputes arising in the other patriarchates. Similar views were expressed by many others,(232) including Nilus Doxapatris (ca. 1142-43), as well as the Constantinopolitan Patriarchs Callistus Ι (1350-53, 1355-63), Philotheus (1353-54, 1364-76), and Nilus (1379-88).
As Byzantine thought developed along these lines, some writers like Βalsamon and Zonaras, the celebrated canonists of the twelfth century, added the nuance that Rome had forfeited its high position because it had lapsed into heresy.(233) Some buttressed the case for the primacy of Constantinople by mention of the legends concerning Andrew(234) (§ 4 above). But many, like Nilus Doxapatris, name Andrew,(235) the "first-called" of the Apostles, as the founder of the bishopric of Constantinople, without drawing any connection between its apostolic foundation and the privileges assigned to it.
Despite grandiose claims to universal jurisdiction made in behalf of the Church of Constantinople, there is no evidence that the Byzantine emperors or their patriarchs attempted to legislate on ecclesiastical matters for Rome and the West after the Seventh Oecumenical Council. Some would argue that the Patriarchs Photius and Michael Cerularius did attempt to exert control over Rome.(236) Actually, however, it is extremely doubtful whether either ever sought, with regard to Rome, to do more than safeguard the autonomy and freedom of action of the see of Constantinople in the most unambiguous and unmistakable manner possible.
Government of the entire Church of the Empire, East and West, fell, of course, within the jurisdiction of the Byzantine emperors, as they understood it, and as, it is important to emphasize, the popes of Rome during the period of the oecumenical councils (325-787) themselves usually felt constrained to admit.(237) But the emperors did not usually attempt to exercise the tight control over the Church of Rome which characterized their relations with the patriarchate of Constantinople. Nor did they in general concern themselves with affairs that were of interest only to Rome. The major acts of imperial interference with Rome were confined to the years between 325 and 787. Thereafter, as a result of the fall of Ravenna (in 751) and the expulsion of Byzantine forces from Italy in 1071, the popes became progressively less tolerant of the kind of restraint which Byzantine political theory involved. Simultaneously, the Byzantine emperors lost the means, formerly available to them, of imposing their will upon Rome.
They then withdrew almost entirely from the West, and abandoned such efforts as they had once made to enforce in Rome or the West the Byzantine concept of imperial supervision of the Church. But they continued to assert dominion, so far as they were able, usually through the patriarch of Constantinople, over the three eastern patriarchates and the churches that had arisen in the Slavic lands.(238)
This self-imposed limitation on Byzantine ecclesiastical sovereignty is illustrated by a passage(239) in the manual of ecclesiastical geography which Nilus Doxapatris prepared for King Roger II of Sicily in 1142-43. Doxapatris insists strongly on the primacy of the Church of Constantinople, which he regards as inherited from Rome because of the transfer of the capital and because Rome had fallen into the hands of the barbarians. But he expressly restricts Byzantine authority to the three eastern patriarchates, as does the Patriarch Callistus about two hundred years later. In other words, Rome was definitely excluded from the Constantinopolitan sphere of influence and put on a par with Constantinople, as can be inferred from Nilus's statement that the bishops of Constantinople and Rome, and only these two, were called oecumenical patriarchs.
(d) Differences between the primacy of Constantinople and that of Rome
Thus, as a matter of actual practice, the pentarchy was resolved into a diarchy consisting of Rome and Constantinople, the two oecumenical patriarchates, which, however, differed from each other during the Middle Ages in two important respects. In the first place, the Constantinopolitan patriarchs were content, as they still are, to remain supreme within their own realm (including the Slavic churches), and did not seek to bring the Church of the West under their domain. But the Roman popes have never been satisfied with divided rule of this sort, and have never ceased to press for one, unified Church, obedient to Rome.
Secondly, the Byzantine Church was never able to liberate itself from dependence upon the emperor. But Rome, always more restive under the imperial yoke than Constantinople, managed to shake off its Byzantine shackles in the early part of the eighth century, and, as time went on, the papacy created for itself a position of strength, which enabled it not only to resist encroachment upon the ecclesiastical realm by secular rulers, but also at times to gain the upper hand over them (see § 23 below).
NOTES
210. - On the pentarchy, see Gerasimos Ι. Konidares, "The theory of the pentarchy of the patriarchs and their primacy of honour in the Notitiae Episcopatuum" (in Greek), in Les Paralipomènes (Publications de l'Institut d'études orientales de la Bibliothèque Patriarcale d'Alexandrie, 3 [Alexandria, 1954]), 121-40: on the early period; R. Vancourt, "Patriarcats," DTC, 11, 2 (1932), 2269 ff., 2296 f.; Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 450 ff., 461 ff. D. Η. Marot, "Note sur la pentarchie," Irénikon, 32 (1959), 436-42, makes no attempt to present new sources or interpretations.
211. - Mansi, Concilia, 16, 35Α, 82CD, 140Ε, 317Ε, 344Ε; Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1097C: in 1142-43, on whom see Vitalien Laurent, "Doxapatris (Nil)," DHGE, 14 (1960), 769-71; idem, "L'oeuvre géographique du moine sicilien Nil Doxopatris," ΕΟ, 36 (1937), 5-30.
212. - Michael Cerularius, Εp. 2, 4, PG, 120, 760ΑΒ; Theodore Balsamon, PG, 119, 1164BCD, 1173C, 1176B-1177C, reprinted in PG, 138, 1016BCD, 1025C, 1028Β-1029Β; Patriarch John Χ Camaterus (1198-1206), ed. Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 456 f. Cf. Nicetas Seides (early 12th c.), ed. Jugie, ibid., 4, 454; Severien Salaville, "De 'quinivertice ecclesiastico corpore' apud S. Theodorum Studitam," Acta Academiae Velehradensis, 7 (1911), 177-80, reprinted in idem, Studia orientalia liturgico-theologica (Rome, 1940), 228-32.
213. - PG, 119, 1172D; PG, 138, 1024D.
214. - Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des Ν. Mesarites (cited in note 49 above), 56.21-27. Theodore Balsamon, in his commentary on the twelfth canon of the Second Council of Antioch (341), PG, 137, 1308D-1309A, rejects the view that appeals could be carried from one patriarchate to another according to the rank thereof (i.e., from Jerusalem to Antioch to Alexandria to Constantinople to Rome) and maintains that the decisions of the patriarch of Constantinople had the same standing as those of the emperor and were not subject to review by the emperor or anyone else (ibid., 1312A-D; cf. 1310Α). He admits, however (1312Α, cf. 1310ΑΒ), that the emperor had special privileges which enabled him to judge cases involving sacrilege, heresy, or any other kind of offence. In practice, of course, the emperor could always interfere with the patriarchal administration of justice whenever he wished. Cf. Nilus Doxapatris and Callistus in note 239 below, who attribute to the patriarch of Constantinople the right to review and supervise all decisions of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Nicholas Mesarites (Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des Ν. Mesarites, 56.27-57.17, 58.7) says that a patriarch deposed by a synod of his own church might appeal to the Roman pope, if the pope were orthodox. He insists that the pope was not superior to the patriarch of Constantinople, and had no right to appoint bishops (outside the lands subject to him) or patriarchs (so also Barlaam of Calabria, in the fourteenth century: PG, 151, 1267CD-1268CD, 1271C). But Mesarites concedes that so far as the appeal of a patriarch against his own synod was concerned, the pope was, perhaps (isos), more privileged than the other patriarchs. In context, however, the implication was that this advantage had been vitiated by the heresies of Rome.
215. - Michael Cerularius, Εp. 2, 21, PG, 120, 776ΑΒ: on majority vote; Balsamon, PG, 138, 1024BC; Ps.-John Dam., PG, 95, 332CD; Mansi, Concilia, 13, 208Ε-209Α; Theodore the Studite, PG, 99, 1305ΑΒ; Vancourt, DTC, 11, 2 (1934), 2271 ff.
216. - See, e.g., Pope Nicholas Ι, Εpp. 29, 71, 86, MGH Epist. 6, Κarolini aevi, 4, 296.31-36, 397.1 ff., 398.9-11, 30 ff., 447.32 ff., 448.5-7; see note above and 252 below.
217. - Mansi, Concilia, 16, 7D: in the preface to his Latin translation of the Acts of the Council of 869-70. On Anastasius see summaries and bibliographies by L. Ueding, LThK, 1 (1957), 493 f.; Benedetto Pesci, Enciclopedia Cattolica, 1 (1948), 1151 f.; Α. Noyon, DHGE, 2 (1914), 1477-79; Ernst Perels, Papst Nikolaus I und Anastasius Bibliothecarius (Berlin, 1920); Arthur Lapôtre, De Anastasio Bibliothecario (Paris, 1885).
218. - Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des Ν. Mesarites (cited in note 49 above), 54 f.; August Heisenberg, ed., Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, 2, Die Unionsverhandlungen vom 30. Aug. 1206 (SBAW, 1923, 2. Abh. [Munich, 1923]), 24.18-25.1; for bibliography on whom see Glanville Downey, Nikolaos Mesarites: Description of the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople (TAPhS, N.S. 47, 6 [Philadelphia, 1957]), 859 f.; "Against those who say Rome is the first throne," 5, ed. Μ. Gordillo, "Photius et primatus Romanus," OrChrP, 6 (1940),11 f.: see note 150 above: written early in the 13th c., Gordillo says; by Photius, others contend. See an anonymous text of the early thirteenth century, ed. Arsenii, Three works by an unknown Greek writer of the beginning of the thirteenth century (Greek text, Russian trans.) (Moscow, 1892), 107 ff.; an unknown patriarch of the thirteenth century, ed. Α. Ρavlov, Critical sketch of the history of the earliest Greco-Russian polemic against the Latins (in Russian with Greek texts) (St. Petersburg, 1878), 165 f.; Barlaam of Calabria (early 14th c.), PG, 151, 1260CD, and in an unpublished treatise summarized by Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 394. On Barlaam, see note 240 below (Meyendorff and Giannelli, locc. citt.); Giuseppe Schiro, Barlaam Calabro, Epistole greche (Istituto siciliano di studi bizantini e neogreci, Testi, 1 [Ρalermo, 1954]); idem, "Ι rapporti di Barlaam Calabro con le due chiese di Roma, e Bisanzio," AStCal, 1 (1931), 325-57, which inaugurated Schiro's valuable work on Barlaam. On notes 218-20, cf. John Meyendorff, "St. Peter in Byzantine theology," SVThQ, 4 (1960), 26-48.
219. - Patriarch John Ι Camaterus (1198-1206) in a letter to Pope Innocent Ill (from an unpublished MS, quoted by Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 341 f.); Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2, Unionsverhandlungen (see previous note), 25.1 ff.; a contemporary of Mesarites, ed. Arsenii, op. cit. (in previous note), 98-106, quoted by Jugie, op. cit., 4, 343 ff.; an unknown 13th-c. Patriarch, ed. Α. Ρavlov, op. cit. (in previous note), 165 ff.; Pantaleon, Contra errores Graecorum, PG, 140, 526C: in Pietro Risso, "Matteo Αngelo Panaretos e cinque suoi opuscoli,"Roma e l'Oriente, 8 (1914), 236: 14th cent.; Barlaam of Calabria, PG, 151, 1258D-1260D; Macarius of Ancyra (early 15th cent.), quoted by Jugie, op. cit., 4, 346 ff. Cf: Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia to Anselm of Havelberg, as reported by the latter in Dialogi, 3, 9, PL, 188, 1221, although Nicetas perhaps, prepared to yield on this point; ibid., 3, 11, PL, 188, 1223Β.
220. - Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des Ν. Mesarites (cited in note 49 above), 55.8 ff.; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2, Unionsverhandlungen (cited in note 218 above), 22.9-22, 23.16-35; Barlaam of Calabria, PG, 151, 1263C.
221. - Fragments from the lost Tmemata of John Philoponus as preserved in the Syriac Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche jacobite d'Antioche (1166-1199), ed. trans. J. Β. Chabot, 2 (Paris, 1901), 101 f; cf Μ. Jugie, "La primauté romaine d'après les premiers monophysites," ΕΟ, 33 (1934), 18Ι-89; Michael ΙΙΙ Anchialus, ed. C. Loparev, VizVrem, 14 (1907), 350, § 21; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2, Unionsverhandlungen (cited in note 218 above), 24.1-3; Gordillo (note 218 above), 11.2-4; unknown writer, ed. Arsenii (note 218 above), 107 ff.
222. - See previous note and Theodore the Studite, PG, 99, 1161Α; Nicetas Seides (early 12th c.), ed. Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 380 n. 1; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des Ν. Mesarites (cited in note 49 above), 56.10 ff.; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2, Unionsverhandlungen (cited in note 218 above), 24.3-13; Gordillo (note 218 above), 11.5-15. Cf. Nilus Cabasilas, PG, 249, 725C (on Christ's death in Jerusalem as more significant than that of Peter in Rome).
223. - John Philoponus, loc. cit. (note 221 above); Nilus Doxapatris (in 1142-43), PG.132, 1100CD; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des Ν. Mesarites (cited in note 49 above), 56.12-20, 58.5 f.; Gordillo (note 218 above), 13.19-22; Patriarch Callistus (1350-54, 1355-63), PG, 152, 1383Β; Nilus Cabasilas (d. ca. 1363), PG, 149, 704ABC.
224. - Cf previous note and Patriarch Michael III Anchialus (1170-77), ed. C. Loparev, VizVrem, 14 (1907), 350 § 21; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2, Unionsverhandlungen (cited in note 218 above), 22.25-23.15; anonymous treatise against Roman primacy, ed. Gordillo (see note 218 above), 12.13-13.14, 24 f; Barlaam of Calabria, PG.151, 1265CD; idem, ed. Jugie, op. cit., 4, 393. Cf. Balsamon, PG, 137, 1312C; 138, 1013Β; Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 383 ff. Mesarites, and Pseudo-Photius, ed. Gordillo, erroneously give the name of the emperor as Gallienus, instead of Aurelian (Eusebius, ΗΕ, 7, 30, 19), on whom see Gustave Bardy, Ρaul de Samosate, 2d ed. (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, Etudes et documents, 4 [Louvain, 1929]), 358-63. For other Byzantine texts of interest, see Franz Dölger, loc. cit. in note 129 above.
225. - Aristenus, PG, 137, 325D; Balsamon, PG, 137, 1436Α; PG, 138, 1013C-1016B, 1028D; Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1097C-1101C; Michael III Anchialus, ed. C. Loparev, VizVrem, 14 (1907), 350 § 21; Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des Ν. Mesarites (cited in note 49 above), 56.16-20; Callistus, PG, 152, 1383BC; Barlaam of Calabria, PG, 151, 1266D-1268C; Nilus Cabasilas, PG, 149, 704ΑΒ, 709C.
226. - See previous note and Epanagoge, 3, 9, edd. Ι. and Ρ Zepos, Jus graecoromanum, 2 (Athens, 1931), 242 f.; Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1097D-1101Α; Aristenus, PG, 137, 325D, 489D-491A. Cf. Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 1, Epitaphios des Ν. Mesarites (cited in note 49 above), 57.22-58.7. Balsamon is inconsistent. He says that the canons of 381 and 451 made Constantinople second to Rome: PG, 137, 321B-325C (with Zonaras), 485Α. But he also states unequivocally that Constantinople had the same rights as Rome, in all respects: PG, 137, 485D-488A, 1312C, 1436Αs cf. PG, 138, 1013C-1016B.
227. - George Ostrogorsky, "The Byzantine emperor and the hierarchical world order, " Slavonic and East European Review, 35 (1956-57), 1-14: this is an abridgment of the article in German cited in note 141 above.
228. - Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1100D-1101A. Cf. Parthenios Κ. Polakes, "Historical presuppositions of the primacy of the bishop of Constantinople" (in Greek), Theologia, 23 (1952), 95-108, 239-52, 440-55, 581-95; 24 (1953), 70-79, 375-89; 25 (1954), 124-44, who deals chiefly with the fourth and fifth centuries.
229. - John Philoponus, οp. cit. (in note 221 above), 101 f., rejects the Roman primacy, and denies that any ecclesiastical canon or imperial law granted the bishop of Rome the power to do what he wished, or promulgate a decree except by authorization of a council. He then argues that Rome had no basis for primacy in the apostolic authority of Peter. For, he says, to take one example, the Church of Constantinople, being situated in the city to which the capital of the Empire had been transferred, governed that of Ephesus, despite the latter's foundation by the Apostle John. Besides, he adds, in Rome, Peter gained primacy over the other churches "by a certain custom, because of the imperial authority and the importance of Rome:" Thus John Philoponus does not quite ascribe supremacy over the entire Church to Constantinople, but he does seem to imply it. This is all the more remarkable because, as a monophysite, he was in conflict with Constantinople and the imperial theology.
230. - Ratramnus, Contra Graecorum opposita romanam ecclesiam infamantium, 4, PL, 121, 335Β: "patriarcham Constantinopolitanum praeponere Romano pontifici gestiunt, et urbem Constantinopolim Romae praeferre conantur"; Nicholas Ι, Εp. 100 (to Hincmar, etc.), MGH Epist., 6, Κarolini aevi, 4, 6Ο520 ff.: "... isti praetendunt, ... quando de Romana urbe imperatores Constantinopolim sunt translati, tunc et primatum Romanae sedis ad Constantinopolitanam ecclesiam transmigrasse et cum dignitatibus regiis etiam ecclesiae Romanae privilegia translata fuisse ..." Cf. Franz Dölger, "Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner" (see note 129 above), 99 ff., who quotes the principal texts (pp. 103 f., n. 58), and gives an excellent summary of the Βyzantine idea of the translatio imperii in the Church.
231. - Nomocanon xiv titulorum, 1, 5, ed. Ι. Β. Pitra, luris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta, 2 (Rome, 1868), 462 f.; Epanagoge, 3, 9, edd. J. and Ρ Zepos, Jus graecoromanum, 2 (Athens, 1931), 242 f.
232. - Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1097D-1101D; Callistus, PG, 152, 1359Α, 1384BC; Philotheus, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, ed. F. Miklosich-I. Müller, 1 (Vienna, 1860), 516 (document 264), 521 (no. 266); Patriarch Nilus, ibid., 2 (1862), 45 (no. 357).
233. - Zonaras, PG, 137, 488D; Balsamon, PG, 138, 1016Β, 1020D; Nilus Doxapatris, PG, 132, 1101Αs Michael III Anchialos, ed. C. Loparev, VizVrem, 14 (1907), 344-57, n.b. 345-51,.356 f.; Callistus, PG, 152, 1383D; Andronicus Camaterus, quoting the Emperor Manuel Ι ca. 1166, MS. ed. by Hergenrother, Photius, 3, 813 f. Cf. Nilus Cabasilas, PG, 149, 706B-D, 708ΑΒ (on Honorius's heresy), 728D-730A.
234. - Heisenberg, Neue Quellen, 2, Unionsverhandlungen (cited in note 218 above), 24.13 ff; Gordillo (note 218 above), 11.16 ff.
235. - PG, 132, 1105Β.
236. - Jugie, Schisme byzantin, 139, 215 f.; idem, Theologia dogmatica, 4, 426 f.
237. - E.g., except for Vigilius (on whom see § 8 (c) above), the popes responded to the imperial summons to send legates to the oecumenical councils, etc. Pope Leo Ι in Epistola 156, 3 (PL, 54, 1129C-1130A), written in December 457, and addressed to the Emperor Leo Ι (457-74), describes the latter as one worthy of being counted among the preachers of Christ and even of rising to the ranks of the Apostles and prophets. He then acknowledges that the royal power was bestowed upon the emperor not only for the government of the world but also as a bulwark for the Church: "inter Christi praedicatores digno honore numerandum ... ad consortium to apostolorum ac prophetarum secures exhortor ... regiam potestatem tibi non ad solum mundi regimen, sed maxime ad ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam." More significantly, in the following year, the Pope confessed that the emperor was infallible in the faith, and that he was guided by the Spirit of God, which dwelled within him: "Quamuis ergo multum per omnia de pietatis vestrae corde confidam, et per inhabitantem in vobis Spiritum Dei satis vos instructor esse perspiciam, nec fidei vestrae ullus possit error illudere, praeceptioni tamen vestrae in eo adnitar obedire, ut aliquos de fratribus meis dirigam, qui apud vos praesentiae meae instar exhibeant, et quae sit apostolicae fidei regula, licet, ut dixi, vobis bene sit nota, demonstrent" (Εp. 162, 3, PL, 54, 1145Β); "Quam vis enim sciam clementiam team humanis institutionibus non egere, et sincerissimam de abundantia Spiritus sancti hausisse doctrinam officii tamen mei est et patefacere quod intelligis, et praedicare quod credis" (Εp. 165, 1, PL, 54, 1155Β). Ιn these letters the Pope urges the Emperor to remain faithful to the Chalcedonian Creed and asks him to receive emissaries who had been instructed to remind him of its contents. But the remarks about the emperor's divine guidance and infallibility nevertheless reveal the Pope's acceptance of Byzantine notions with regard to the role of the emperor in the Church. For a valuable collection of texts in which Leo assigns a superhuman status to the emperor, see Stockmeier, Leo I, des Grossen Beurteilung der kaiserlichen Religionspolitik (cited in note 75 above), 75-152, n.b. 146 ff. See notes 64 and 75 above, and cf. Walter Ullmann, "Leo Ι and the theme of papal primacy, " JThSt, N.S. 11 (1960-61), 25-52; Anton Michel, "Der Kampf um das politische oder petrinische Prinzip der Kirchenführung;' in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, ed. Α. Grillmeier-H. Bacht, 2 (Würzburg, 1953), 526 f.; Wilhelm Ensslin, Gottkaiser and Kaiser von Gottes Gnaden (SBAW, 1943, Heft 6 [Munich, 1943]), 95 ff., 105f; Karl Voigt, "Papst Leo der Grosse und die 'Unfehlbarkeit' des oströmischen Kaisers," ZKirch, N.F 10 = 47 (1928), 11-17.
238. - On Byzantine difficulties with the Slavic churches, see Beck, Kirche, 184 ff., and index s.vv. Achrida, Bulgarien, Serbia, etc. N.b. Francis Dvornik, The Slavs: Their early history and civilization (Boston, 1956): to the 13th c.; a second volume on the later period is to be published ca. 1961-62; idem, The making of Central and Eastern Europe (London, 1949): with bibliography and references to other works by idem; Αlbert M. Ammann, Abriss der ostslawischen Kirchengeschichte (Vienna, 1950); Lubor Niederle, Manuel de l'antiquité slave, 2 vols. (Paris, 1923-26).
|
