www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Legates from Bishop of Rome

Questions:

1. Why did the Bishop of Rome send legates to the seven Ecumenical Councils rather than attend himself? Did this have a practical or theological or canonical intent?

2. Was this consistently done for all seven?

Thank you,

Robert

With the exception of the Fifth Council, it would have been nearly impossible for the Bishop of Rome to attend any of the Seven in person. He did not always send legates (there were none present at the Second Council, for example).

Fr. Serge

I think the fact that the west was under constant Barbarian invasion was a factor. Also the christological issues were more of an Eastern problem. However Pope St. Leo the great sent his Tome in the council of chalcedon

Thank you, Father.

Why would it have been impossible for the Bishop of Rome to attend? I understand somewhat the environment with Visigoths, Normans, etc. over the centuries, but does that really imply he could not leave the city?

Also, does the sending of legates and then subsequent review of what happened at the Council by the Bishop of Rome imply some sort of approval step for the results of the Council?

Robert

Thank you Father, very interesting.

I think we should expand upon this further though, what in particular would make this the case? It seems like a rather general statement for such a long period of history.

I was thinking that for a considerable period, the city was within the bounds of the empire and such travel was not out of the question.

Michael

Well if Roman legates from Rome could attend but the Pope couldn't, then there is obviously no geographic barrier behind the Pope's lack of attendance. This is assuming the legates were themselves traveling from the Eternal City.

Alexis

So, based on the last two responses, I go back to the idea that having legates continually sent (at least for Councils III-VII) by the Bishop of Rome, who subsequently reviewed a Council's results based on their report, tells us something about how the Bishop of Rome viewed his role, and may tell us something about how primacy was exercised in the first millennium.

Robert

Well I believe if I am not mistaken, it was the position of Rome and that the acts of the Council had to be ratified by him.
Stephanos I

One needs to study each of the Seven Councils in detail. And (surprise!) the history of the councils is often itself controversial.

Fr. Serge

The Second Council (382)included, after all, only about 150 Bishops from Thrace, Asia Minor and Egypt, and was convoked precisely in order to deal with Eastern problems.

And it must be remembered that this Council was not originally intended to be "Ecumenical" in the same sense as the great Nicene convocation.

In fact, it was not recognized as "Ecumenical" by the Council of Ephesus (431) half a century later, and it was left to Pope Gregory the Great (the Illuminator) to elevate it papally to that status.

That Roman primacy of jurisdiction was widely accepted in the East at this time is clear from the negotiations before and during the Council of Ephesus (the third ecumenical council).

Perhaps it does, but not necessarily how one would think.

I am not able to dig into this at the moment but the rest of the church did not wait for the Bishop of Rome's approval to implement conciliar decisions. The "approval" of the bishop of Rome was necessary to get these implemented in his own Metropolitanate.

Michael