Introduction. On October 30, 451, during the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, the dispute between Metropolitan Eunomius of Nicomedia and Metropolitan Anastasius of Nicaea was considered. Eunomius ...believed that his rights as the metropolitan of the entire province of Bithynia, in regard to ordinations, were violated by Anastasius of Nicaea, who had deposed a number of clerics of the city of Vasilinopolis. Information about this lawsuit is taken from the published acts of the 14th session of the Chalcedon Council. Methods. The work is based on the application of the historical-critical method of data processing of the source text used in the original in Greek according to the standard critical edition and quoted by the author in his own translation. Analysis. Based on the analysis of the act material, the author restores the course, content and internal logic of the conciliar audition of the claim of Eunomius of Nicomedia. It also reveals the cause of the claim, external factors and figures that had influenced the course of the case and become the cause of its occurrence. The factors include the unsettled status of the Metropolitan of Nicaea within the province of Bithynia, the limits of his competence and jurisdiction. Similar factor is the unsettled status of the Metropolitan of Nicomedia as bishop of the provincial capital (metropolis), that lead to a conflict of jurisdictions over the Bithynian city of Vasilinopolis. Decisive is also the influence in Bithynia of the patriarchal see of Constantinople and persons who occupied it, beginning with John Chrysostos. The decision of the Ecumenical Council on this lawsuit turns out to be half-hearted: the city of Vasilinopolis and its clergy are recognized as belonging to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Nicomedia, declared the first Metropolitan of Bithynia, but the question of the subordination of the Metropolitan of Nicaea, recognized as the second, remains open. This is evident from later sources, in which the Metropolitan of Nicaea is designated as an independent ruling metropolitan within the province of Bithynia, with his own district and jurisdiction. Results. The decision of the Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon failed to approve in Bithynia the canonical definition of the Council of Nicaea that there should be only one ruling metropolitan in the province. It is obvious that the decision of the judges was influenced by the ancient tradition of intercity rivalry between Nicaea and Nicomedia, dating back to pre-Christian times. The latter was clearly manifested in the fact that the main argument of the litigants was the recognition of the secular title of metropolis for both cities, confirmed by imperial letters. Thus, the dispute between Nicaea and Nicomedia shows that the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils were embodied in church-political and church-administrative practice in so far as they corresponded, or at least did not contradict the established tradition of socio-political relations.
Introduction. Despite multiple references and partial treatment of the proposed topic in scholarly literature, the necessity of its full-scaled analysis on the basis of the Acts of the Fourth ...Ecumenical Council held in Chalcedon in 451 still remains.
Methods. The paper analyzes the entire published Acts and determines all relevant passages concerning the characteristics of the Pope’s pretensions to the universal primacy in the Church and the limits of their acceptability by the participants of the Council.
Analysis. The author undertakes the research of the consequent sessions of the Council and analyzes relevant data comparing the declarations and claims of the papal legates and their actual perception by the imperial dignitaries, who were presiding over the Council, and the bishops.
Results. The presented research demonstrates that Pope’s claims to the universal power within the Church were actually discarded by the Council and the representatives of the emperor in multiple ways. Firstly, the legates (vicarii) of the Pope were not trusted with the actual presidency over the Council (except in one session). Secondly, pope’s decisions, which had been taken before the Council and which the legates had been instructed to implement, were put under reexamination through the Council and were passed as conciliar decisions, often with no reference to the pope as their initiator. Thirdly, the Council didn’t accept certain elements of the pope’s title, which reflected his universal claims. In general, the Council of Chalcedon was the first to promote the principle of the primacy of honour that was bestowed on Rome and Constantinople equally.
The year 395 marked a turning point in the fortunes of the Roman Empire. The division of the imperial territory into two portions proved to be final and, in the short-term historical perspective, led ...to the downfall of the western part. The article suggests that this event was caused by a deliberate position taken by the ruling elites of the Eastern Roman Empire toward their western counterparts. The main reason for the downfall of the West thus lies in the fact that the eastern government refused to subsidize the western infrastructural and military needs with its money and other resources, which up to that time had been the necessary condition for the maintenance of the Roman civilization in the westernmost part of the Roman Empire—praefectura Galliarum. The eastern ruling class used the unique situation of the virtual absence of the Roman army and its commanders, which had withdrawn for operations in Italy, to establish the rule of a civilian government. The refusal to support the West economically led to the rise of the eastern economy, as well as to the growth in importance of eastern regions such as Syria and Egypt, which were economically the strongest. These conditions, created within the Eastern Empire after the secession of the West, in many respects resembled those of the same territories during the Hellenistic period, with the exception that now they were kept together by the efficient unifying institutions of the Roman state of Late Antiquity.
Introduction. Despite multiple references and partial treatment of the proposed topic in scholarly literature, the necessity of its full-scaled analysis on the basis of the Acts of the Fourth ...Ecumenical Council held in Chalcedon in 451 still remains. Methods. The paper analyzes the entire published Acts and determines all relevant passages concerning the characteristics of the Pope’s pretensions to the universal primacy in the Church and the limits of their acceptability by the participants of the Council. Analysis. The author undertakes the research of the consequent sessions of the Council and analyzes relevant data comparing the declarations and claims of the papal legates and their actual perception by the imperial dignitaries, who were presiding over the Council, and the bishops. Results. The presented research demonstrates that Pope’s claims to the universal power within the Church were actually discarded by the Council and the representatives of the emperor in multiple ways. Firstly, the legates (vicarii) of the Pope were not trusted with the actual presidency over the Council (except in one session). Secondly, pope’s decisions, which had been taken before the Council and which the legates had been instructed to implement, were put under reexamination through the Council and were passed as conciliar decisions, often with no reference to the pope as their initiator. Thirdly, the Council didn’t accept certain elements of the pope’s title, which reflected his universal claims. In general, the Council of Chalcedon was the first to promote the principle of the primacy of honour that was bestowed on Rome and Constantinople equally.
Introduction. Despite multiple references to the proposed topic in the scholarly literature, it still seems relevant to identify and consistently describe the entire set of measures taken at the ...Council of Chalcedon in order to raise the status of the see of Constantinople. Methods. The work is based on the application of the historicalcritical method of analysing source data of the original text, compiled in Greek and Latin. Analysis. The article consistently describes and analyses the church-political steps and actions taken during the conciliar meetings, which paved the way for the elevation (“addition to honour”) of the see of Constantinople, which took place during the 17th conciliar act. These measures included the corroboration of the status of the Council of Constantinople in 381 as the Second Ecumenical Council, the use of the ecclesiastical and political actions of the see of Constantinople in the previous period as court of appeal and “superprovincial” instance as precedents, as well as a demonstration of the equal status of the Archbishop of Constantinople in relation to his Roman counterpart. The result was the adoption of the so-called 28th canon and its approval by the officials presiding at the council, and then by the emperor Marcian himself. Results. The author concludes that the actions taken by the officials, who were presiding at the council, and the representatives of the Church of Constantinople during the council were planned and consistently aimed at establishing the equal honour of the see of Constantinople in relation to the see of Rome and its second place in regard to the latter. He also points to certain similarities in the process of elevation of both sees.
This article examines the circumstances behind Boniface I’s ascension (418–422) to the See of Rome which was accompanied by rivalry between two candidates. Since his rival Eulalius had been initially ...approved as a legitimate bishop by Emperor Honorius (395–423), Boniface had to go through a complicated procedure of legitimation, whose decisive factor was the position of the emperor. The article examines the role of institutional factors in the legitimisation of church authority, in this case in relation to the See of Rome. By institutional factors the author means, first of all, state power represented by its regional and central authorities and the community of bishops united by the principle of conciliar functioning. The article examines the approaches of the imperial power to resolving the crisis of legitimacy of the Roman bishop. Based on the presentation of source data, it is demonstrated that Emperor Honorius intended to resolve the crisis through a deliberation by a council that was to include representatives of both prefectures of the Western Roman Empire. Despite his initial intention, the emperor was forced to resolve the crisis on his own and Boniface was confirmed as bishop of Rome by his personal decision. The author of the article draws a conclusion that the decisive role in the sphere of church administration belonged to the emperor and that the Roman bishop did not have an exceptional position among the bishops of the Western Roman Empire: the affairs of the See of Rome could be transferred by order of the emperor to the court of Western bishops, and the right of the final decision belonged to the emperor himself. Thus, the latter used the conciliar principle of administrating the church as a possible instrument for resolving internal church conflicts, but he also reserved the right of taking his own independent decisions in the ecclesial sphere, and the See of Rome was not an exception.
The paper addresses the term “exarch of a diocese” (ἔξαρχος τῆς διοικήσεως), for the first time attested in the acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon (451 AD), in the ninth and ...seventeenth canons of this Council, which documented the prerogatives of the “exarchs of dioceses” and of the patriarch of Constantinople’s see as the courts of appeal for the cases against metropolitans. In order to clarify the meaning of this term, the author has undertaken a study of the use of the term “exarch” as an indication of an archpriest. It turns out that already in the Byzantine period there was no exact understanding of what it meant, as it appeared from the contradictory opinions of the twelfth century canonists in regard to this subject. Another objective of this paper is to clarify the term “diocese” as applied to the church-administrative sphere. Further, the author makes an attempt to trace the reception of these Chalcedonian canons in the Byzantine church legislation. The conclusion is that the term “exarch of the diocese” should be understood in the context of the revision of a number of cases concerning the disputes of the metropolitans, in which the patriarch of Constantinople was involved, at the Council of Chalcedon. The analysis of these cases and of a number of canons of the first ecumenical councils is intended to illustrate the concept of the ecclesiastical head of the diocese, with the “diocese” turning out to be a state-administrative term. Subsequently, the term “exarch” was used in different church-administrative contexts in the period when the dioceses as state-administrative units had already ceased to exist. The term “patriarch of the diocese” repeatedly occurred in Justinian’s legislation, where it should be considered a parallel to the “exarch of a diocese” of the Chalcedonian canons. This legislation also provides the solution to the problem of the double jurisdiction of the cases against metropolitans.
This article examines the circumstances associated with several sessions held in Rome in December 531 considering the case of Stephanus, Metropolitan of Larissa in Thessaly. In the presence of Pope ...Boniface II (530–532), the representative of Stephanus Theodore, bishop of the city of Echinus, read out the complaints sent by Stephanus and his associates to the pontiff against the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople, by whose judgment Stephanus had been deposed. The letters of Stephanus and his colleagues were enclosed with the acts, which, together with the letters of the popes directed to the bishops of Illyricum between the 4th and 5th centuries attached to them, made up a collection known as the Collectio Thessalonicensis. The purpose of this article is to study the acts of the aforementioned sessions in order to clarify their ecclesiastical status, to investigate the circumstances and canonical foundations of the case of Stephanus of Larissa, as well as the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople both in the case of the Metropolitan of Larissa and in Illyricum as a whole during the period. The author concludes that the sessions of December 531 in the papal curia were not a council, despite the fact that in the secondary literature they are called exclusively that way. It is further concluded that the case against Stephanus of Larissa is a classic case against a Metropolitan, regulated by canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon, according to which the Archbishop of Constantinople should consider such a case, as well as by the imperial legislation. Since the legal sentence of the prelate of the capital against the Thessalian metropolitan was final, Stephanus’ appeal to Rome was uncanonical and had no legal consequences.
Introduction. The brief pontificate of Pope Zosimus (417–418) was marked by the Roman Synod in September 417, the decisions of which were of great importance both for the subsequent ...church-administrative development of Southern Gaul and for the development of the concept of papal primacy.
Methods. The task of the authors of the article is to analyse the church-political actions of Pope Zosimus in the broad historical context of the early 5th c. and to determine the degree of his independence in decision-making.
Analysis. The article analyses the measures of the Ravenna court to restore control over the region of Southern Gaul in the situation when the imperial administration lost this control as a result of mutinies and the arrival of barbarian tribes, as well as the role assigned to the Roman bishop in this process. In this context, the article investigates the events of the Roman Synod of September 417, at which church-political and church-administrative affairs related to Gaul and Africa were examined. There were considered two groups of cases, related to one another due to the involvement of same persons, who, in their turn, had been involved into ecclesiastical politics in Gaul during the usurpation of Constantine III. These persons, former bishop of Arles Heros, former bishop of Aquae Sextiae (Aix en Provence) Lazarus and bishop of Marseille Proculus, became subjects of conciliar condemnation. At the same time, within the framework of the same process, the Synod undertook the rehabilitation of Pelagius and Caelestius, who had previously been condemned by the African Synod and pope Innocent I (401–417). The latter circumstance actually implied the undermining of the authority of both Innocent and the papacy.
Results. The authors conclude that the agenda of the Synod was entirely dictated by state interests and aimed at eliminating the consequences of the usurpations in Southern Gaul and reintegrating this region into the administrative system of the Western Roman Empire.
Introduction. The brief pontificate of Pope Zosimus (417–418) was marked by the Roman Synod in September 417, the decisions of which were of great importance both for the subsequent ...church-administrative development of Southern Gaul and for the development of the concept of papal primacy. Methods. The task of the authors of the article is to analyse the church-political actions of Pope Zosimus in the broad historical context of the early 5th c. and to determine the degree of his independence in decision-making. Analysis. The article analyses the measures of the Ravenna court to restore control over the region of Southern Gaul in the situation when the imperial administration lost this control as a result of mutinies and the arrival of barbarian tribes, as well as the role assigned to the Roman bishop in this process. In this context, the article investigates the events of the Roman Synod of September 417, at which church-political and church-administrative affairs related to Gaul and Africa were examined. There were considered two groups of cases, related to one another due to the involvement of same persons, who, in their turn, had been involved into ecclesiastical politics in Gaul during the usurpation of Constantine III. These persons, former bishop of Arles Heros, former bishop of Aquae Sextiae (Aix en Provence) Lazarus and bishop of Marseille Proculus, became subjects of conciliar condemnation. At the same time, within the framework of the same process, the Synod undertook the rehabilitation of Pelagius and Caelestius, who had previously been condemned by the African Synod and pope Innocent I (401–417). The latter circumstance actually implied the undermining of the authority of both Innocent and the papacy. Results. The authors conclude that the agenda of the Synod was entirely dictated by state interests and aimed at eliminating the consequences of the usurpations in Southern Gaul and reintegrating this region into the administrative system of the Western Roman Empire.
PDF
