www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Emperor Constantine on the Papacy

What was the Emperor's view of the Papacy? In his mind, did the Pope have universal jurisdiction> Court of final appeal? Just another Bishop?

Thanks,
Lawrence

Constantine wrote squat, zilch, zip, zero, de nada about the jurisdiction of the Pope or the papacy in general (unless you want to count that pesky "Donation" which was the foundation of so many papal hopes, but which turned out to be a medieval forgery). As far as it went, Constantine considered that he, himself, had universal jurisdiction over the Church (and everything else), because he was God's Vice-Gerent on earth, divinely appointed to maintain harmony and orthodoxy (but harmony first).

That would explain why I can't find anything. Is it worth discussing whether it the Emperor served as a prototype of the Papacy?

He certainly thought he could personally settle matters of doctrine himself, IIRC. So it seems he had a high view of the "Papacy".

Find Meyendorff's Imperial Unity, which discusses this "imperial" model of the Church. Also take a look at H.A. Drake's Constantine and the Bishops.

As long as there was a strong emperor whose authority extended into Italy, the Bishop of Rome, like the Archbishop of Constantinople, remained under the imperial aegis--in fact, Papal elections had to be ratified by the Emperor right down to the end of the 8th century. With the collapse of imperial power in the West, the mantle of maintaining imperial unity fell increasingly upon the Papacy, which can be excused for following the only model it had at hand--that of the Emperor in Constantinople. When, finally, the Pope turned from Byzantium to the Franks for protection, he was very careful to ensure the new "Emperor of the Romans" was visibly subordinate to him, the Vicar of Christ.

Thank you, Stewart. I will try to find it.

In general, what was the nature of the relationship between the papacy and the other patriarchs prior to 313?

Formal "patriarchates" did not exist prior to the Council of Constantinople (381) which established a formal order of precedence. But the three Great Churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome each had great influence within their geographic realms, and deferred to each other on matters of faith. Rome was generally conceded to be the first Church because it was the most wealthy, was situated in the capital of the Empire, and had the double apostolic foundation of both Peter and Paul. However, attempts by any one Church to impose its will on another were generally resisted. This was true even within the Western Church, where the Churches of Gaul, Spain and Africa were quite jealous of their prerogatives and independence from Rome.

Stewart,
Thank you. This is good information. With these facts in mind, how do you account for the papacy as it is today? If the papacy kind of evolved into what it is due to the example of the emperor, and there really wasn't a papacy as we know it for the first few centuries, why are you Catholic?

Based on the facts you've put forward, it seems the Orthodox view of the papacy is much more in line with those first few centuries then the view of Catholics. Why not Orthodox?

That they were jealous of their prerogatives and independence may be the case, however, St Cyprian did write this from Carthage (Africa) about 60 years before Constantine:

"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

And you will also find many instances when those same churches sought Rome's preeminent solicitude. Hosius of Cordova, or St Augustine of Canterbury perhaps. Like today's churches throughout the world, of course, they resisted meddling from Rome or any other church.

St. Cyprian's revised edition of the text quoted above that makes clear that all bishops sit upon the Cathedra Petri, and not merely the bishop of Rome.

St. Ignatios said it best, "Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

Dear brother Militantsparrow,

Despite appearances on other issues, brother Stuart and I generally agree on the state of the Church before the marriage of Church and State in the fourth century.

I would just like to add brother Stuart's intelligent assessment that before the notion of jurisdiction came about, Rome's universal solicitude was realized through auctoritas. And there are many examples of this universal solicitude before the fourth century - e.g., the disciplinary epistle of Pope St. Clement to the Church in Corinth; the fact that the Church in Rome often helped many Churches financially; the fact that St. Polycarp travelled all the way from Asia to Rome to discuss the matter of Easter with Pope St. Anicetus; the fact that Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria accepted correction from Pope St. Dionysius of Rome on a matter of doctrine; etc. In fact, the first truly universal act in the early Church was not the First Ecumenical Council. The first truly universal act was the discussion of the Easter issue during the time of Pope St. Victor. Pope St. Victor had sent out an encyclical letter to all the Churches of the world instructing them to hold local Synods on the matter of the date of Easter. And the local Synods sent legates back to Rome to report the results of their Synods. I think brother Stuart would agree that this was not a matter of potestas, but a matter of auctoritas. The Church of Rome and her bishop did possess great universal authority based on the respect and honor. But the Bishop of Rome was (and is) not above correction, as the later events surrounding the Easter controversy evince.

The difference between the universal authority of Rome then, and the universal authority of Rome now is the amount of centralization that has occurred over the centuries. There are many in the Latin Church who believe that the bishop of Rome is the be all and end all of every form of authority in the Church. Eastern and Oriental Catholics (as well as many Latin Catholics) don't accept such an Absolutist Petrine view, but believe collegiality is both the standard of early Church, as well as the real teaching of the Catholic Church.

Now, there are those who think that the Catholic Church must deny the teachings of the Vatican Councils on the papacy in order to realize a truly patristic ideal. To do this, they sometimes end up distorting the teaching of the Vatican Councils to defend their position. Granted - it seems they are justified because there are many Latins who distort the taeching of the Vatican Councils to support an exaggerated Absolutist Petrine view of the papacy (as you well know since you follow the debates I have with the Absolutist Petrine advocates at CAF). On the other hand, there are those believe the teachings of the Vatican Councils are fully patristic, and that the problem is that they have simply not been fully realized in the Catholic Church yet. I can't speak for Eastern clergy, but I have heard that their usual complaint is that the Decrees of Vatican 2 have not yet been fully implemented with respect to the rights of the non-Latin Churches. So many Easterns do believe that the groudwork for reform already exist in the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Utroque,

St. Cyprian was much more explicit than that about the papacy. This quotation indeed establishes that St. Peter was the source of unity for the Apostles. What we need as well is a statement from St. Cyprian is that Rome had inherited this feature of the Petrine ministry, and indeed we do have such a quote.

In his Epistle 54 to Pope St. Cornelius regarding the heretics, he wrote:
"[the heretics] still dare to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter and to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith as praised in the preaching of the Apostles, to whom faithlessness could have no access."

Note his explicit admission that the Church in Rome had a faith - according to Scripture - to whom "faithlessness could have no access." Infallibility admitted by St. Cyprian!

It's unfortunate that he did not remain faithful to his own preaching, and opposed the Bishop of Rome on the matter of the Baptism of the Novatians. But I'm sure he was in heaven blushing as he witnessed an Ecumenical Council affirm the orthodoxy of Pope St. Stephen's position in opposition to his own - the Second Ecumenical Council accepted the validity of the Baptism of the Novatians.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Todd,

Could you provide a link or direct quote of St. Cyprian for this statement? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk