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

Subsequently, the synod was assembled. Before the papal legates had arrived, the Council met, treated Nestorius the Patriarch of Constantinople accused of heresy as in good standing—entirely ignoring the sentence already given by Rome—and, having examined the case (after summoning him three times to appear so he might be heard in his own defense), proceeded to sentence Nestorius and immediately published it. On the 10th of July (more than a fortnight later), the papal legates having arrived, a second session was held, at which they were told what had been done, all of which they were gracious enough to approve.¹

4. The Council of Chalcedon refused to consider the Eutychian matter the heresy claiming Christ had only one nature as settled by Rome’s decision or to accept Leo’s Tome a doctrinal letter by Pope Leo I without examination as to whether it was orthodox. Moreover, it passed a canon at a session which the Papal legates refused to attend, ratifying the order of the Patriarchates fixed at the First Council of Constantinople, and declaring that “the Fathers had very properly given privileges to Old Rome as the imperial city, and that now they gave the same privileges” to Constantinople as the seat of the imperial government at that time.

5. The Fifth Ecumenical Synod refused to receive any written doctrinal communication from the then-Pope (Vigilius), removed his name from the diptychs the list of names commemorated during the liturgy, and refused him communion.

6. The Third Council of Constantinople, the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, excommunicated Pope Honorius, who had been dead for years, for holding and teaching the Monothelite heresy the belief that Christ had only one will.

7. It is certain that the Pope had nothing to do with the calling of the Seventh Synod,² and it is quite possible that it was presided over by Tarasius and not by the Papal legates.

Such is, in brief, the evidence which the Ecumenical Councils give on the subject of what, for lack of a better designation, may be called the Papal claims. Under these circumstances, it may not be deemed strange that some extreme ultramontanists advocates of absolute papal authority have arrived at the conclusion that many of the acts and decisions as we have them are spurious, or at least corrupted in an anti-papal direction. Vincenzi, who is the most learned of these writers, argues somewhat thus: "If the members of the Ecumenical Synods believed as we do today with regard to the Papacy, it is impossible that they should have acted and spoken as they did; but we know they must have believed as we do, ergo therefore they did not so act or speak." The logic is admirable, but the truth of the conclusion depends upon the truth of the minor premise. The forgeries would have been very extensive, and who were they done by? We are unfortunately familiar with forgeries like the False Decretals to advance papal claims, but it is hard to imagine who could have forged in Greek and Latin the acts of the Ecumenical Synods. It is not necessary to pursue the matter any further—perhaps its very mention was uncalled for—but I wish to be absolutely fair, so that no one may say that any evidence has been suppressed.³

¹ Protestant controversialists, as well as others, have curious ways of stating historical events without any regard to the facts of the case. A notable instance of this is found in Dr. Salmon’s Infallibility of the Church (p. 426 of the 2d Edition) where we are told that “the only one of the great controversies in which the Pope really did his part in teaching Christians what to believe was the Eutychian controversy. Leo the Great, instead of waiting, as Popes usually do, till the question was settled, published his sentiments at the beginning, and his letter to Flavian was adopted by the Council of Chalcedon. This is what would have always happened if God had really made the Pope the guide to the Church. But this case is quite exceptional, resulting from the accident that Leo was a good theologian, besides being a man of great vigor of character. No similar influence was exercised either by his predecessors or successors.” This sentence is not pleasant reading, for it is an awe-inspiring display of one of two things, neither of which should be in the author of such a book. We need only remind the reader that Celestine had condemned Nestorius and his teaching before the Council of Ephesus; that Honorius had written letters defining the question with regard to the will or wills of the Incarnate Son before the Third Council of Constantinople (which excommunicated him as a heretic for these very letters); that Pope Vigilius condemned the “Three Chapters” before the Second Council of Constantinople; and that Gregory II condemned the iconoclastic heresy before the Seventh Synod, if the letters attributed to him be genuine (which is not quite certain, as will be shown in its proper place). Thus, the only two great questions not decided, one way or another, by the See of Rome before the meeting of a General Council were Arianism and Macedonianism, and some have held (though mistakenly, as is generally thought) that Arius was condemned by a synod held at Rome before that of Nice.
² See Michaud’s brilliant answer to Hefele, Discussion sur les Sept Conciles Œcuméniques original: Discussion on the Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 327.
³ The reader may easily satisfy himself on this matter by reading the somewhat extensive works of Aloysius Vincenzi, published in Rome in 1875 and thereabouts.