Part 1 — Introduction
Part 2 — The Council of Nicaea (325)
Part 3 — The Council of Constantinople (381)
Part 4 — The Council of Ephesus (431)
Part 5 — The Council of Chalcedon (451)
Part 6 — Leo
Part 7 — Conclusion
This is part 4 of our series discussing Lawrence McCready’s article “Papal Primacy in the First Councils” from the Unam Sanctam Catholicam blog. Today, we will discuss the Council of Ephasus, in 431AD.
The Third Ecumenical Council gathered in Ephesus in the year 431 and condemned the heretic Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius. Though none of its canons directly pertains to the main subject, the Acts of the Council were preserved, which shed important light on the significance of the papacy in the eyes of the whole Church. For example, in Session III of the Council, the Pope’s chief representative stated the following:
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time.
Philip the presbyter was a representative of the Bishop of Rome. Given the political climate of the church, no one should be suprised to see the Bishop of Rome promoting the Bishop of Rome. Considering the purpose of the council in Rome-friendly Ephesus was to condemn his rival the Patriarch of Constantinople—New Rome—we should not be surprised at all that the council was heavily pro-Rome. At the risk of being glib, water is wet.
Now, let’s compare Philip’s speech (above) to the first time the Bishop of Rome tried to create Roman Primacy (below):
1. After all these [writings of] the prophets and the evangelical and apostolic scriptures which we discussed above, on which the catholic church is founded by the grace of God, we also have thought necessary to say what, although the universal catholic church diffused throughout the world is the single bride of Christ, however the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision, but from the voice of the Lord our saviour in the gospel obtained primacy: ‘You are Peter,’ he said, ‘and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to you I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind upon Earth shall be bound also in heaven and whatever you release upon Earth shall also be released in heaven’.
…
3. Therefore first is the seat at the Roman church of the apostle Peter ‘having no spot or wrinkle or any other [defect]’.
However the second place was given in the name of blessed Peter to Mark his disciple and gospel-writer at Alexandria, and who himself wrote down the word of truth directed by Peter the apostle in Egypt and gloriously consummated [his life] in martyrdom.
Indeed the third place is held at Antioch of the most blessed and honourable apostle Peter, who lived there before he came to Roma and where first the name of the new race of the Christians was heard.
In the half century that had elapsed, the message remained largely the same. If we can say one thing it is that Rome was consistent in pushing its self-proclaimed claim to supremacy. On the other hand, the language had gotten considerably more colorful and flowery over the decades. To wit:
Throughout this series we’ve emphasized a few times how the previous councils placed Antioch in a more prestigious place over both Rome and Alexandria, but we had not yet explained its relevance. Now, let’s pay particularly special attention to how (and why) Rome strategically claimed that Alexandria, not Antioch, was second to Rome.
At the Council of Nicaea, the Bishop of Antioch was the Metropolian of the East while Rome and Alexandria were merely provincial “city” bishops. Thus, this “endorsement” by Rome of Alexandria was a rather clever bit of political maneuvering to undercut Antioch’s historically superior place—and presumably to undercut Antioch’s support of Constantinople. Clearly, Rome was far better at politics than its rivals (including and especially New Rome).
This kind of talk was not out of the ordinary to those in attendance at the Council since the pope’s authority was acknowledged by all. This sounds nothing like what Protestants or Eastern Orthodox would have us believe about the “true” status of the Bishop of Rome. But this raises yet another point against them: if such manifest heresy as the papal primacy was being espoused, then surely someone would have gotten up and objected? Surely after condemning the Patriarch of Constantinople (Nestorius), the Council would have turned around and condemned this “papalist heresy” while they were at it. But what did St Cyril of Alexandria, champion of orthodoxy at the Council say following this “outburst” by Philip? Observe:
Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: “The professions which have been made by [the Papal Legates] Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West. Wherefore let those things which were defined by the most holy [Pope] Celestine, the God-beloved bishop, be carried into effect, and the vote cast against Nestorius the heretic, by the holy Synod, which met in the metropolis of Ephesus be agreed to universally; for this purpose let there be added to the already prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today, and let them be shewn to their holiness, so that by their subscription according to custom, their canonical agreement with all of us may be manifest.”
Before continuing, it is worth noting that Cyril of Alexandria is not the same as Cyril of Jerusalem. We have spoken of the latter many times in the past (e.g. here), but much less often have we spoken of Cyril of Alexandria.
Now, what are we to make of all this talk about the pope’s[1] authority? Well, it is all rather remarkable. Just over a century earlier, the council of Nicaea was making rulings based on the limited authority of Bishop of Rome. A recently as sixty years earlier, the Bishop of Rome still didn’t even have primacy within his city’s own diocese, let alone authority over the whole of the church. Fifty years earlier, Constantinople was boldly claiming supremacy through its own “ecumenical” council. But in the intervening years, Rome had wrested enough political power to completely control the narrative at this “ecumenical” council. The tables had turned.
Note that Cyril was the Patriarch of Alexandria. The Patriarch of Alexandria had, quite notably, joined the Patriarch of Rome in his opposition to the Patriarch of Constantinople. But, as we saw above, the seeds of that division had been purchased decades earlier:
Canon 3: The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.
3. Therefore first is the seat at the Roman church of the apostle Peter ‘having no spot or wrinkle or any other [defect]’.
However the second place was given in the name of blessed Peter to Mark his disciple and gospel-writer at Alexandria, and who himself wrote down the word of truth directed by Peter the apostle in Egypt and gloriously consummated [his life] in martyrdom.
Indeed the third place is held at Antioch of the most blessed and honourable apostle Peter, who lived there before he came to Roma and where first the name of the new race of the Christians was heard.
The contrast between these two competing, non-ecumenical councils is stark.
At his council, Rome had offered Alexandria second place among all the churches. Logically, Antioch should have had the supremacy. Antioch had Peter, while Alexandria only had Mark (and, remarkably, isn’t considered by Roman Catholics even to be the Peter’s Papal successor!). Moreover, at the time of Nicaea, Antioch already had the supremacy—in diocesan and ecclesiastical terms—over both Alexandria and Rome. Rome’s offer was a political bribe, plain and simple, as if to say:
It just did so using polite and conciliatory political language.
By contrast, Constantinople portrayed itself as a usurper, claiming jurisdiction for itself (though, ironically, that’s exactly what Rome was doing!). The sheer bluntness and abrasiveness of its Canon 3 ultimately only served to alienate his potential allies in Antioch (and Alexandria). Here is what Wikipedia says about the political climate during the Council of Constantinople.
The bishops of Alexandria and Rome had worked over a number of years to keep the see of Constantinople from stabilizing. Thus, when Gregory was selected as a candidate for the bishopric of Constantinople, both Alexandria and Rome opposed him because of his Antiochene background.
Notice how Antioch had been the strongest ally of Constantinople’s claim, while Alexandria stood alongside Rome in its shared opposition.
Notice too how Rome had opposed Gregory’s nomination for political reasons. Gregory held the Bishopric of Constantinople from 379 to 381, in the same era as the councils of Constantinople (381) and Rome (382) during the height of political tensions between Old and New Rome. Yet, Gregory Nazianzus would become one of the most important and significant figures in the theological history of Roman Catholicism. In addition to sainthood, he is considered one of the Three Holy Hierarchs.
In choosing softer, more conciliatory language and siding with Alexandria, Rome demonstrated that it was clearly more deft at politics, and history played out accordingly. Thus we see in Cyril’s speech at the Council in Ephesus the fruit of Rome’s political bribe of Alexandria and Constantinople’s political blunder. Constantinople tried to force the issue, while Rome quietly built a political coalition.
McCready leaves out much of the historical and political context of the Council of Ephesus.
The Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, refused to acknowledge Cyril’s right to convene a council and stand in judgment over him. For Cyril had held the first session of the council five days before the opposing Antiochene delegation had arrived. Nestorius, rightly, condemned this move as an act of injustice. 68 bishops condemned the assembly and declared it invalid. But the damage was already done.
Wikipedia describes what happened next:
However, since even the bishops opposed to opening the council were now present, Cyril maneuvered Candidian by means of a ruse to read out the text of the Emperor’s decree of convocation, which the assembly then acclaimed as recognition of its own legality.
When John of Antioch and his Syrian bishops finally reached Ephesus five days after the council, they met with Candidian who informed them that Cyril had begun a council without them and had ratified Celestine’s conviction of Nestorius as a heretic. Angered at having undertaken such a long and arduous journey only to have been pre-empted by actions taken by Cyril’s council, John and the Syrian bishops held their own Council with Candidian presiding. This council condemned Cyril for espousing the Arian, Apollinarian and Eunomian heresies and condemned Memnon [of Ephesus] for inciting violence. The bishops at this council deposed both Cyril and Memnon. Initially, the emperor concurred with the actions of John’s council but eventually withdrew his concurrence.
The second session was held in Memnon’s episcopal residence. Philip, as papal legate, opened the proceedings by commenting that the present question regarding Nestorius had already been decided by Pope Celestine as evidenced by his letter, which had been read to the assembled bishops in the first session.
And that’s the context of Cyril and Philip that McCready left out. It all reads a bit different once the actual history is revealed, doesn’t it?
Much more took place in the six sessions that followed, but ultimately, the Council of Ephesus represented the culmination of decades of Rome’s political maneuvering. It was wildly successful, resulting in major political losses for both Constantinople and Antioch: Nestorius of Constantinople was condemned and John of Antioch was excommunicated along with 34 of his allies. The final decree of the council was, somewhat amusingly, to excommunicate anyone else who disagreed with their judgments.
The Council of Ephesus was a coup which Rome won.
So even St Cyril himself accepted the Pope’s authority without any qualms; indeed, he was simply acting according to the instructions Pope Celestine gave to him prior to the start of the Council. Notice how all of this continues to confirm what the prior two Ecumenical Councils indicated. When looking at doctrinal development, it behooves us to look at the former through the lens of what it developed into later. When we see how the papal authority was received and agreed upon in the days of St. Cyril, we can better understand the context in which to read statements like those found in Canon 6 of Nicaea and Canons 2 and 3 of Ephesus.
And there it is, the Roman Catholic Axiom, stated clearly and explicitly:
When looking at doctrinal development, it behooves us to look at the former through the lens of what it developed into later.
It is even more clearly stated than this famous quote:
“The acts of the fourth century speak as strongly as its words. [..citations from Barrow’s on the Supremacy..] More ample testimony for the Papal Supremacy, as now professed by Roman Catholics, is scarcely necessary than what is contained in these passages; the simple question is, whether the clear light of the fourth and fifth centuries may be fairly taken to interpret to us the dim, though definite, outlines traced in the preceding.” Citation: John Henry Cardinal Newman, “On the Development of Christian Doctrine” (1878). Section III. The Papal Supremacy. 14-17
I’ll be honest, my past experiences trying to get Roman Catholics to admit to holding the Roman Catholic Axiom have been like pulling teeth. Most will vigorously deny it and/or accuse me of slandering or lying. But here is McCready stating it boldly and honestly in no uncertain terms. I have to admit, it is rather brave to so honestly and boldly self-refute your own position like that. It’s crazy, but at least it’s masculine.
So, no, dear sir, it does not behoove us to engage in circular reasoning. In fact, if we are being completely intellectually honest, it behooves us to refuse to explicate the older through an examination of the recent. We should, in fact, refuse to beg the question.
Evidence of development is, rightly speaking, proof of innovation. And starting in the late 4th century, right around that Council of Rome in 382, a veritable flood of doctrinal innovation infected the church. I’ll conclude by providing this partial, abridged list of Roman Catholic doctrines that had their true beginning during or after the late 4th century:
Roman and Papal primacy
Papal infallibility
Priestly celibacy
Elevation of virginity and fasting over marriage
Mariology (immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption of Mary, Mother of the Church, Queen of Heaven)
Kneeling on the Lord’s Day and during Pentecost
Incense and candles
Veneration of relics, images, the cross, and the dead
Baptismal regeneration
Intercession of the saints
Unification of church and state (The title of Pontifex Maximus, Ex communicare replaced by ex civitate, Taking up the civil sword to persecute and kill the faithful, Civil taxes flowing through the Bishops and priestly wealth acquisition)
Church holidays (Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday)
Vestments
The system of sacraments
Eucharistic alterations (including the liturgical order, transubstantiation, the Real Presence, the sacrifice of the Mass, Eucharistic Adoration, communion on the tongue, the liturgical mixing of water with wine)
Not a one of these come from the biblical or apostolic age.
What we should do is (1) see that these doctrines and teachings did not exist even as late as the apostolic age; and, (2) reason forward in time to see when, how, and why they were created. Then, (3) we should reject each and every one of them.
That’s the correct way to reason: forward. What we don’t do is rewrite the past in order to make it conform to what came after. That’s a backwards approach, both literally and figuratively.
Footnotes
[1] The word ‘pope’ means ‘father’ in Latin. At that time, various Bishops were called this. The use of this term was not yet reserved only for the Bishop of Rome. The use of the term does not imply either primacy or special authority.