Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 14 (Seven Ecumenical Councils)

...and I shall therefore only discuss the relations of these seven synods to the Roman See. In the first place, it is evident that no council has ever been received as ecumenical that has not been received and confirmed by the Roman Pontiff. But, after all, this is only to say that no council has been accepted as ecumenical that has not been ecumenically received; for it must be remembered that there was only one patriarchate for the whole West—that of Rome. This is true for all practical purposes, regardless of whether certain sections had extra-patriarchal privileges and were "autocephalous" self-governing.

However, it would give an entirely unfair impression to suggest that this necessity for Rome’s confirmation sprang from an idea of Rome’s infallibility. As far as any existing document shows, such an idea was as unknown in the world then as it is in four of the five patriarchates today. It should be borne in mind that confirmation by the Emperor was sought for and spoken of in terms just as strong, if not stronger. Before examining the relation each of the Councils bore to the Roman See, it may be well to note that while, as an historical fact, each of the Seven Ecumenical Councils did eventually find acceptance at Rome, this does not prove that such acceptance is necessary by the nature of things. If we can imagine a time when Rome is not in communion with the greater part of the West, it is quite possible to imagine an Ecumenical Council being held whose decrees would (for the time being) be rejected by the unworthy occupant of the Apostolic See. I am not asserting that such a state of affairs is possible from a theological standpoint, but merely stating an historical contingency that is perfectly within the range of imagination, even if considered practically impossible by the faith of some.

We now come to consider how each of the Seven Synods, through its actions, indicated its relation to the Roman See:

1. The First Council of Nicaea passed a canon in which some of the Roman rights are evidently viewed as resting on the same plane as those of other metropolitans, declaring that they rest upon "custom."

It was the Emperor who originated this council and called it together, if we may believe his own words and those of the council. While it is possible that when the Emperor did not preside in person, Hosius of Cordova may have done so (even uniting the two Roman presbyters who were the legates of the Roman See with him), there is no evidence that anything of the kind ever took place. Furthermore, Pope Felix III (483–492 AD) in his Fifth Epistle (to the Emperor Zeno) declares that Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, presided at this council.¹

The matter, however, is of little moment, as no one would deny the right of the See of Rome to preside in a council of the whole Church.

2. The Second Ecumenical Council was called together by the Emperor without the knowledge of the Roman Pontiff. Nor was he invited to be present. Its first president was not in communion with the Roman Church at the time of its session. Without any recourse to the first of all the patriarchs, it passed a canon changing the order of the patriarchates and placing the new see of Constantinople in a higher position than the other ancient patriarchates—in fact, immediately after Rome. Of course, Protestants will consider this a matter of very minor importance, regarding all patriarchal divisions, ranks, and priorities (including the Papacy) as disciplinary in character and jure ecclesiastico by church law, in no way affecting doctrine. However, any fair reading of the third canon of this synod would seem to plainly assert that just as the first rank of Rome rested on the fact of it being the capital city, so the new capital city should have the second rank. If this interpretation is correct, it affects the Roman claim of jure divino by divine law primacy very materially.

3. Before the third of the Ecumenical Synods was called to meet, Pope Celestine had already convicted Nestorius of heresy and deposed and excommunicated him. When...

¹ Cf. Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, ch. 6.