Mondays are for Church History
8/19/24
Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter V. The Hierarchy and Polity of the Church." In History of the Christian Church. (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, from Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great. (pp. 1993-2106). (Original work published 1889). Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 48-67).
"§56. Synodical Legislation on the Patriarchal Power and Jurisdiction." (pp. 2029-2038).
Schaff earlier described the rise of the Patriarchate, with a small contingent of leading bishops in influential cities exercising authority over other bishops. He now traces its growth from "the ante-Nicene period, when the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, partly in virtue of the age and apostolic origin of their churches, partly, on account of the political prominence of those three cities as the three capitals of the Roman empire, steadily asserted a position of preeminence" (Schaff 2014, p. 2029). The influence of the three centers was recognized at the ecumenical council in Nicea in 325. The three bishops were affirmed as holding authority to accept or reject any elevation of a bishop (Schaff 2014, p. 2030). Schaff does maintain that, at the time of the council at Nicea, the patriarchs were still recognized as primi inter pares, not as de facto rulers over the other bishops (Schaff 2014, p. 2031).
After the council of Nicea, in 330 with the establishment of Constantinople, the bishop there began to be recognized, due to the city serving as a capital of Rome (Schaff 2014, p. 2031). In the fifth century, the patriarch of Constantiople was recognized as having power rivaling the patriarch of Rome.
The patriarch of Constantinople had been recognized at the council of Constantiople in 381. The rapid rise in power may have been related to a Greek understanding that the bishop of Constantinople was recognized in the same way as the bishop of Rome. Rome, on the other hand, saw the equality to be in honor, rather than in power (Schaff 2014, p. 2032). The patriarch of Alexandria, not wanting to lose his authority as second to Rome, attempted to invalidate the decision, but was persuaded to allow it by the emperors. The patriarch of Constantinople, after 381, sought to consolidate his power and gain control of other metropolitans. By the year 400, Chrysostom of Constantinople held sway over locations as far away as Ephesus (Schaff 2014, p. 2023).
The council of Chalcedon in 451 affirmed the power of the patriarch of Constantinople in particular (Schaff 2014, p. 2033). They equated New Rome (Constantinople) with Old Rome (Rome), asserting a shift in authority due to the presence of the emperor and senate in Constantinople. The authority of the patriarch of Constantinople was decreed, along with the requirement that he would be the only one to order metropolitan bishops (Schaff 2014, p. 2034). This authority extended to Thrace, Pontus, and Asia Minor. In 530, his authority was increased by the emperor Justinian to receive appeals from the other patriarchs (Schaff 2014, p. 2035). Schaff does observe that these moves were consistent with the traditional polity that made the power of the patriarch commensurate with the authority of the civil government.
At this point, the patriarch of Rome considered the elevation of the patriarch of Constantinople inappropriate (Schaff 2014, p. 2035). This conflict, according to Schaff, remains unresolved. Rome continues to assert primacy, documented by the Nicene canon number six, in Latin, which assigns Rome permanent primacy (Schaff 2014, p. 2035). However, in its Greek original, the primacy of Rome is not asserted (Schaff 2014, p. 2036). An imperial council called to consider the problem assigned Rome ruling authority and Constantinople equality in honor (Schaff 2014, p. 2036). Roman bishop Leo formally protested the decision in May of 452. He accused the situation in Constantinople as an attack on Eastern metropolitans and a violation of a long standing agreement from Nicea. His protest, however, was not successful (Schaff 2014, p. 2037).
8/19/24
Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter V. The Hierarchy and Polity of the Church." In History of the Christian Church. (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, from Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great. (pp. 1993-2106). (Original work published 1889). Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 48-67).
"§56. Synodical Legislation on the Patriarchal Power and Jurisdiction." (pp. 2029-2038).
Schaff earlier described the rise of the Patriarchate, with a small contingent of leading bishops in influential cities exercising authority over other bishops. He now traces its growth from "the ante-Nicene period, when the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, partly in virtue of the age and apostolic origin of their churches, partly, on account of the political prominence of those three cities as the three capitals of the Roman empire, steadily asserted a position of preeminence" (Schaff 2014, p. 2029). The influence of the three centers was recognized at the ecumenical council in Nicea in 325. The three bishops were affirmed as holding authority to accept or reject any elevation of a bishop (Schaff 2014, p. 2030). Schaff does maintain that, at the time of the council at Nicea, the patriarchs were still recognized as primi inter pares, not as de facto rulers over the other bishops (Schaff 2014, p. 2031).
After the council of Nicea, in 330 with the establishment of Constantinople, the bishop there began to be recognized, due to the city serving as a capital of Rome (Schaff 2014, p. 2031). In the fifth century, the patriarch of Constantiople was recognized as having power rivaling the patriarch of Rome.
The patriarch of Constantinople had been recognized at the council of Constantiople in 381. The rapid rise in power may have been related to a Greek understanding that the bishop of Constantinople was recognized in the same way as the bishop of Rome. Rome, on the other hand, saw the equality to be in honor, rather than in power (Schaff 2014, p. 2032). The patriarch of Alexandria, not wanting to lose his authority as second to Rome, attempted to invalidate the decision, but was persuaded to allow it by the emperors. The patriarch of Constantinople, after 381, sought to consolidate his power and gain control of other metropolitans. By the year 400, Chrysostom of Constantinople held sway over locations as far away as Ephesus (Schaff 2014, p. 2023).
The council of Chalcedon in 451 affirmed the power of the patriarch of Constantinople in particular (Schaff 2014, p. 2033). They equated New Rome (Constantinople) with Old Rome (Rome), asserting a shift in authority due to the presence of the emperor and senate in Constantinople. The authority of the patriarch of Constantinople was decreed, along with the requirement that he would be the only one to order metropolitan bishops (Schaff 2014, p. 2034). This authority extended to Thrace, Pontus, and Asia Minor. In 530, his authority was increased by the emperor Justinian to receive appeals from the other patriarchs (Schaff 2014, p. 2035). Schaff does observe that these moves were consistent with the traditional polity that made the power of the patriarch commensurate with the authority of the civil government.
At this point, the patriarch of Rome considered the elevation of the patriarch of Constantinople inappropriate (Schaff 2014, p. 2035). This conflict, according to Schaff, remains unresolved. Rome continues to assert primacy, documented by the Nicene canon number six, in Latin, which assigns Rome permanent primacy (Schaff 2014, p. 2035). However, in its Greek original, the primacy of Rome is not asserted (Schaff 2014, p. 2036). An imperial council called to consider the problem assigned Rome ruling authority and Constantinople equality in honor (Schaff 2014, p. 2036). Roman bishop Leo formally protested the decision in May of 452. He accused the situation in Constantinople as an attack on Eastern metropolitans and a violation of a long standing agreement from Nicea. His protest, however, was not successful (Schaff 2014, p. 2037).
RSS Feed