www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Western representation at the first three Ecuemnical Councils

Hi Byzcath its been awhile. I had a question so I thought I'd pop round, post it here see if anyone had an answer for me.

I'm currently writing an essay on the Nicene Council it just occured to me that Nicea had almost no Western representation present. Besides Ossius of Cordoba and six other Western Bishops no Western representation is named for Nicea I and in light of St Athanansius' rounding the number of Bishops up to 318 (to correspond to Abraham's servants) and Constantine's political reasons for moving the Synod from Ancyra to Nicea it seems very plausible to me, particularly in light of the West's complete ignorance of the Councils of the East until St Hilary of Poiters wrote a book on them, that Western involvement at Nicea was minimal (at best).

Likewise, at Constantinople I there was no Western involvement at all and the West did not even find out about the Second Ecumenical Council until the Third Ecumenical Council. I know that Rome sent legates to Nicea I and Ephesus I but apart from their legates how many Westerners actually took part in the latter Synod? St Cyril of Alexandria invited St Augustine of Hippo but the latter did not attend, does anyone know the actual number of Western Bishops who did go to Ephesus I?

Thanks for the assistance
INXC
Myles

Oh, oh. Be careful with this one - this topic is like walking the mine fields of Guntanamo Bay. RC's will vehemently argue that only because Ossius was present was the Council 'legitimate'. Their paradigm states clearly that he was there to present the views of the reigning pontiff and, actually, was there to 'control' or 'direct' its course. I've taken graduate theology courses at Roman institutions and know first hand about how they 'judiciously edit' the proceedings of the first Ecumenical Councils to rationalise the primacy of Rome. Ultimately, the RC position is that these Councils of the East were legitimate and Ecumenical due only to the pope's 'approval'.

Dear friend

I dont know under whom you recieved your instruction but Ossius of Cordoba chaired the Council at the behest of Constantine being his court Bishop. The represenatives of Pope St Sylvester at the First Ecumenical Council were the Roman presbyters Vincentius and Victor and I've never heard of anyone editing the acts of the Council to try and obscure this fact. Rarely indeed did Rome send Bishops to represent it at the early Ecumenical Councils. Indeed, prior to the Fifth Ecumenical Council I cannot recall a Latin Bishop representing Rome at any Council. For his part Ossius was an interestingly confusing man: His name appears on contrasting Creeds e.g. Nicea I and the pro-Arian Council of Sirium 357AD. Accordingly he wouldn't be the best person for your teachers to have pushed as representing Rome.

I did not post this topic to incite anyone I was just writing an essay as I said and it hit me for the first time that, apart from its status as a General Synod Nicea I strikes me as a thoroughly Oriental Council just as the First Council of Constantinople does. Not that I'm bringing into question their Ecumenical status I just find it interesting that there was such little participation from the Occident. I was simply curious if any of the learned Greeks here had any idea of how many Western Bishops took part in the Councils upto Chalcedon.

INXC
Myles

I believe the Archbishop of Thessalonika was the Pope's representative at the early Councils. Even though a Greek see it was part of Illyria which was territory of Patriarchate of the West until Emperor Leo the Isaurian detached it and placed under the omophor of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Myles,glad to see you post again...though at the moment I only can suggest to check DT Brown's site,I use it often, re: alot of reference links...

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/dailyprayer.html

james

Thanks for the references Jakub there's a lot to work through there. This might take awhile...

Deacon Lance I've never heard that the Archbishop of Thessalonika represented Rome in the early Councils. Have you a reference for this?

Myles,

I don't know how St. Cyril of Alexandria or the other Eastern Bishops would have taken the presence of St. Augustine at the Council of Ephesus: after all, the Council was in 431 and St. Augustine died in 430. His presence would have made for a great story to read about in books today, though...

Cyril

Myles,

I revived a copy of my first year seminary church history text, "The Seven Ecumenical Councils" by A.V. Kartashev. The book is in manuscript translation form (translator's typed and unpublished copy). On the section dealing with the opening of Ephesus I, the papacy was represented personally by a Presbyter Philip. Also the two Italian bishops Arcadius and Proectus (Sees not given in the text) were also voting members and signatories of the opening decrees of the council.

I hope this helps.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Myles,

Here is a little that I dug up on the Council of Ephesus from page 57 of John McGuckin's book, "St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy:"

The representation of the Western church was to be minimal. Apart from the papal delegation of Bishops Arcadius and Projectus and the priest Philip, Italy was unrepresented. Even this delegation did not physically arrive until early July when the main drama of the council had been acted out. The ancient sees of Africa were in the throes of the Vandal invasion, and the Imperial military cause was not going at all well. Transport from town to town was dangerous, taking ship across the Mediterranean almost an impossiblity. Only one messenger was sent, the deacon Bessula who came to represent Bishop Capreolus of Carthage, the primatial see of Africa. He brought news of Augustine's death along with a general letter that urged the assembled bishops to allow no innovation in the faith-- a vague letter which Cyril was to interpret as Africa's endorsement of conciliar proceedings. Apart from the symbolic value of the papal court for Cyril, Western influence at this council was to count for very little indeed. Flavius of Philippi and the Macedonian delegation were the most westerly provinces represented in the actual conciliar debates. These were staunchly on Cyril's side.

I hope that this helps paint a fuller picture of the West's presence (or lack thereof) at Ephesus.

Regards,

Cyril

At that time, I think Italian bishops (and even the Pope of Rome) might have been quite surprised to be described as "representatives of the Western church". The Church was simpler then, and that language conjures so many more modern images, that may not be appropriate in that context.

the unworthy,
Elias

Fr Elias you pick up on an important point. The language is reminiscent of a later time and yet look how freely it begins to be used. What I'm mulling through in my own mind is how the centralisation of the Western Patriarchate begins to take off. Often its attributed as an entirely Medieval phenomena but I dont believe thats entirely accurate. Very quickly, even from an Eastern perspective the West began to simply mean Rome.

On the other hand the two other Primatial Sees who had their ancient rights reaffirmed in the Nicene Canons did not experience this phenomena. A very curious fact given that prior to Nicea St Alexander of Alexandria's circular letter had gone out to all of the Bishops of the Provinces which Nicea stated canonically comprised the Alexandrian Patriarchate. Yet thereafter he and his successor, St Athanasius Contramundum, were quite unable to maintain that influence and authority.

In my opinion the difference in the ways the Primatial Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch exercised their rights developed mainly because of the heresies having a deeper impact on the East e.g. the fractioning of the Antiochene See meant that it would never be able to attain the unity of Rome. Alexandria on the other hand had to deal with Arius running away to Libya and spreading his teaching in the province aided and abetted by Eusebius of Nicomedia's influence with Constantine. Not to mention subsequent dealings with the Emperors and the increasing influence of the Bishops of Constantinople which was deeply resented in Egypt: Evidence of which is found in the events leading up to St John Chrysostom's deposition.

I find it very suggestive that one poster called the early Council's 'eastern' because if this was the opinion of the Bishops there it no doubt can be considered a contributing factor in the centralisation of Occidental Christianity. Rome was encouraged by the East to represent the West as her mouth at the early Councils. This surely underlined Rome's position as Patriarch of the West to those churches under her direct canonical jurdistiction. In other words I believe that the East's attitude towards Rome as the representative of the West can be cited as a contributing factor in the growing centralisation of Latin Christianity after the 4th century.

Conversely during the Middle Ages this was exactly the attitude Rome took towards Constantinople. After the 11th century wherein we have instances of a Pope like Leo IX writing a proffession of faith to Peter III of Antioch most of the dealings, particularly the Conciliar dealings, are with Constantinople solely. Just as Rome appears to have been percieved as mouth of the West by the Greek Fathers, to the Latin Medievals New Rome seems to have been viewed as representating the East. This attitude perhaps explains why the Medieval Papacy never felt it was neccessary to have large delegations of Eastern Bishops at attempted reunion Councils. They seem to have figured that since Constantinople had canonical honours akin to Rome's if New Rome agreed to the Council's decrees all of the East would follow as the West had followed Rome in the first millenia.

INXC
Myles

Fr. Elias,

I would also hesitate to say any Italian bishops would have considered themselves Western Bishops. If I was able to throw a few more names out there that might give Myles more information to help his essay, great. If not well, the information provided did not originate from me but McGuckin about 'Western Representation.' One would almost need to define where East ended and West began to sufficiently answer the original post. Deacon Lance's post about the see in Thessalonika shows that there was a time when things were quite muddled about East and West. In many ways, defining East and West becomes a fly in the ointment, but we all come back to it on the Forum. Let us pray for unity.

Cyril,

Praying for those who were aboard the sunken vessel off the Coast of Egypt.

Dear Myles, According to sources I've seen the two Roman priests were Vitus (Vito) and Vincentius.

Yes I also have seen where the Archbishop of Thessaloniki was the Popes representative to Constantinople. I dont know if that was to the Emperors Court, or the Patriachal one, or both, or how long that went on for. I can't recall where I saw that but I would try the Catholic Encylopaedia.

So Myles now you have picked our brains and done your own reading. What was the involvement of attenders at these councils from the Western side of the Roman Empire?

ICXC
NIKA