The West: Rome

With St. Leo the Great (448-461), the view which the popes held of their own mission finds a spokesman capable of giving it moral prestige, administrative skill, and theological articulation.

Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD 450 – 680, John Meyendorff

St. Leo the Great and the Self-conscious Papacy

Even while Leo was a deacon, he was the theological advisor to the Roman bishop and he engineered the active participation of Rome in the Christological debates leading up to and including Ephesus in 431. He would solicit the right person, St. John Cassian, an Easterner and friend of John Chrysostom, to write a treatise on Christology. This brought the Latin Church onto the side of Cyril against Nestorius.

Like most of his contemporaries both East and West, Leo saw the Empire as a blessing for the spread of a unified Christianity – divine providence fashioned the Empire for this time and purpose, giving the Church swift access to all people. Peter was destined for Rome to fulfill the possibilities.

Leo would meet with Attila in 452, succeeding in preventing the invasion of Italy by the Huns; in 455 he would negotiate with the Vandals, sparing Rome’s population and treasures. Yet, he lived through the disintegration of Rome itself, and, in a sense, this afforded the position of pope an even broader claim to leadership in the West.

While emperors might disappear or otherwise abandon their throne, as was done regarding Rome in favor of Constantinople, there abides a truth that remains, and Peter delivered that truth to the capital of the Empire in his time.

Even though popes had been claiming increasing authority over the Church, Leo made a couple of subtle shifts that advanced the process: first, closely linked with Roman legal principles, he saw the Church as a universal body (corpus) – not merely sacramental or spiritual, but organic, concrete, earthly. The principality has passed from Christ to Peter to Peter’s successors. In other words, Peter rules over those who Christ rules.

The second, involves the relationship of Peter and the episcopate as a whole, based on the Scriptural evidence of being the “first” among the Twelve. This was not really a controversial point; all in both East and West saw Peter as such. The issue is one of eventual succession of Peter. This cannot be solved based on Scriptural evidence, but instead depends on ecclesiological presuppositions. How and why is the faith of Peter maintained in the Church after Peter?

Leo would take St. Cyprian of Carthage, who coined the phrase “chair of Peter.” But where Cyprian saw this as a sacramental concept present in each local church via the bishop, Leo applied it to Rome as the one truly occupying the see of Peter. The power of local bishops is dependent on Peter, and Rome has his chair. In other words, the Church had a monarchical structure, with its head in Rome, just as the Empire had its monarchical structure, with its head in Constantinople.

Yet, neither in the West nor in the East had any pope previously exercised authority based on this logic of Leo. Leo seemed aware of just how far practice was from his theory. It is here where he would start taking a leadership position in practice, and that is on the Christological controversies that were, in fact, an issue in the East – not the West: Nestorius was in the East, and his influence was in the East. Of course, those in the East encouraged Leo’s involvement, so the picture is not really one sided.

Ultimately, this would manifest in the Tome of Leo, the statement on Christology accepted at Chalcedon in 451 under a “sign it or else” debate (it took several days to convince some, but not all, of the objecting bishops to conclude that Leo was not opposing Cyril). Having the emperor Marcian on his side was helpful in this regard. Leo was also able to annul the so-called “robber council” of 449, even though it was properly called by the then emperor Theodosius.

I have written often enough about this Council and the Tome to not go in further detail here. Plus Meyendorff will get into this in the next chapter of his book.

Leo’s Successors and the Laurentian Schism

Traditionally, the election of a new pope followed the same procedure as that of any other bishop with the participation of the clergy and selected laity of the city. The episcopal consecration was then performed by neighboring bishops.

The bishop of Rome was unquestionably the major personality of the ancient capital once the imperial capital was moved to Constantinople. The single most important issue which preoccupied the immediate successors of Leo was the policy of Eastern emperors toward the opponents of Chalcedon, especially their attempts to settle the disagreements with compromise. It should be recalled that even many of the bishops who initially accepted Chalcedon (or their successors), would come to reject it in the following years.

Not understanding the subtleties of Greek terminology, and also distrustful of Byzantine imperial politics, subsequent popes feared the slightest departure from Chalcedonian terminology. Into this environment Zeno’s Henoticon was introduced. It contained an uncontroversial condemnation of Nestorius and Eutyches, and a forceful endorsement of Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas. It also claimed to reject all heretics who taught wrongly “in Chalcedon or any synod whatever.”

This last statement would please those who rejected Chalcedon, without formally disavowing the Chalcedonian faith. On this basis, several patriarchs re-entered communion one with another. The Roman pope Felix III would strongly object to this ambiguous deal. Political circumstances would make the Roman stance possible, as Gothic domination of Italy gave Rome some freedom of maneuver from Constantinople.

Yet, eventually Rome and the new pope Anastasius II would offer compromise to Constantinople in order to restore relations. This led a number of Roman clergy to break fellowship with the new pope.

Upon the death of Anastasius in 498, two popes were elected: deacon Symmachus at the Lateran, and Laurence as the basilica of St. Mary. The Roman clergy were split evenly between the two. Constantinople supported Laurence, while Symmachus was backed by popular forces in Rome.

The Arian Gothic king threw his support behind Symmachus, and Laurence would renounce his claim to the papcy. But this didn’t end matters. There remained an active opposition to Symmachus. A new council of bishops was convoked, documents were forged, an abundance of polemical literature was produced, and violence increased. Each party accused the other of moral and canonical crimes.

The schism was a great embarrassment for Rome.

Conclusion

The unity of Rome and Constantinople was eventually achieved, but not by apologetic arguments. Justinian I would use his armies to conquer Italy, integrating once again Rome into the imperial system.

Yet, Rome retained the mystical idea that spiritual and doctrinal responsibility rested with them. This idea would continue to clash with churches in the East, where, instead, they saw that ecclesial consensus was the most authentic way to discern truth.