|
Article Excerpt
NEARLY EVERY OBSERVER of the Eastern Orthodox/Roman Catholic dialogue recognizes that the most significant obstacle to reunion is ecclesiological in nature, namely, the role of the Roman pontiff with respect to the broader church. (1) Given the importance of tradition for both communions, it seems certain that an agreement on this issue would require a return to an ecclesiological practice rooted in the early church. But that begs the question, What was the role of the bishop of Rome in the broader church before the rise of the medieval papacy and the collapse of Byzantium? Even in the period between the conversion of Constantine (ca. AD 313) and the coronation of Charlemagne (AD 800) when the majority of Christians confessed a common creed and ostensibly belonged to a single empire, Christians held different views about the authority of Rome in the universal church. (2) This article examines one of the most important but least scrutinized cases in point, the dispute between Gregory the Great (bishop of Rome, 590-604) and John IV the Faster (bishop of Constantinople, 582-595) over the latter's use of the title "Ecumenical Patriarch." (3)
While many scholars (and modern apologists (4)) of early medieval Christianity are familiar with the controversy and Gregory's famous assertion that no bishop (the pope included) has universal authority, previous examinations have not appreciated the nuances of Gregory's thought or his strategic shifts in policy during the crisis with the East. Indeed, Gregory's reaction to the title was not static, nor was it developed in a vacuum. Moreover, most commentators seem to ignore the fact that it was Eastern intransigence, both imperial and patriarchal, that likely compelled Gregory later in his career to assert more fully the Roman claim to Petrine authority. To understand Gregory's thinking on the subject and to appreciate the equally compelling but divergent concerns of many churchmen of his day, both Greek and Latin, it is necessary to appreciate the tension between two of Gregory's ecclesiological principles: (1) that the preeminence of Peter passed to subsequent bishops of Rome, and (2) that individual bishops who confessed the apostolic faith were autonomous leaders of their own communities. Though Gregory never abandoned either of these positions, he became increasingly willing to appeal to the authority of Peter in his bid to check what he believed was the unprecedented ambition of the see of Constantinople.
THE CONTROVERSY
Although it may be that no one in the papal office was familiar with Constantinople's use of the title "ecumenical patriarch" before the 580s, its association with the patriarch of the Eastern capital went back to at least the year 518. (5) In that year, a letter from the clergy in Antioch addressed John II of Constantinople as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (holy archbishop and ecumenical patriarch). (6) In the same year, two regional synods also referred to John as "ecumenical patriarch." (7)
The patriarch's connection to the title was certainly reinforced when it was included in the Justinianic legislation of the 530s. For example, the first mention of Ephipanius (bishop of Constantinople, 520-535) in the Codex (a codification of prior Roman laws) identifies him as sanctissimo et beatissimo archiepiscopo huius regiae urbis et oecurnenico patriarchae (the very holy and blessed archbishop of this royal city and ecumenical patriarch), (8) The title featured prominently in the Novellae (new laws) issued by Justinian and his successors. Nine of the 134 Novellae issued during Justinian's reign were addressed to the patriarch of Constantinople and included the title, often in the form [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (archbishop of this capital city and ecumenical patriarch). (9) The phrase [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] was explicitly affirmed in the text of Novella 58 and Novella 83. Unlike the Codex, which was produced primarily in Latin, the Novellae were, for the most part, issued in Greek or bilingually. (10) As I will show later, the fact that the Greek phrase [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in the Novellae was typically translated into Latin as universalis patriarches is of extreme significance. (11)
It is likely that the title was initially used honorifically by persons addressing the patriarch. There is no evidence that, prior to John IV, the patriarchs of Constantinople used it to refer to themselves. (12) In 588, however, Pope Pelagius II (579-590) received a letter from John in which the patriarch appended the title as part of his signature. The epistle also included the acts of a Constantinopolitan synod of the previous year, which had investigated certain charges against the patriarch of Antioch. These acts affirmed that the synod had also identified John as the ecumenical patriarch. Pelagius viewed the title as an unwarranted assertion of Constantinopolitan authority. (13) According to Pope Gregory I, who recounted the events years later, Pelagius, "on the authority of the holy apostle Peter," dispatched a series of letters annulling the section of the synodal acts that had affirmed the title. (14) He also ordered his legate in the capital to cease communion with John until the patriarch relinquished the title. (15)
By the time Gregory succeeded Pelagius as pope in September 590, it had become customary for a member of the pentarchy (i.e., the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) to send to the other members a synodal letter that included a confession of faith. (16) Gregory's synodal letter made no mention of the controversy, (17) perhaps because Gregory had served for several years (578-584) as papal legate to the emperor in Constantinople and had cultivated a friendship with John during that time. Possibly Gregory hoped to use his good relations with John and therefore suspended judgment on the matter until later. (18) Whether or not that is true, events in the East forced his hand. At some point near the beginning of Gregory's tenure as pope, two Eastern clerics--John, a priest from Chalcedon, and Athanasius, a priest-monk from Isauria--were found guilty of heresy by another local synod in Constantinople. Both clerics traveled to Rome to appeal their case before Gregory. (19) Gregory agreed to intervene and, through his legate in Constantinople, Sabinianus, attempted to solicit from John the acts of the trial and an explanation of what had transpired. (20)
John responded to Gregory's inquiries by claiming that he had no knowledge of the case--an assertion that was not well received in Rome. (21) So in July 593, Gregory reproached John's intransigence. According to Gregory, John was either ignorant of what was taking place in his own church, or he was dismissing the request in a bid to assert his sovereignty. If the former was true, then the patriarch was unfit for office; if the latter was true, which is what Gregory suspected, then it confirmed the pope's suspicions that his friend had let the corruptive power of episcopal office get the better of him. From Gregory's perspective, the accused clerics deserved a fresh trial; if John was not going to provide one, then it was within the pope's jurisdiction to conduct it himself in Rome. (22) It is worth noting that this letter of 593 does not explicitly address John's use of the ecumenical title. Nevertheless, Gregory's multiple allegations concerning John's "uncanonical behavior" likely refer to more than Athanasius's claim that he had been flogged during his trial in Constantinople. (23) Moreover, it is clear that Gregory's subsequent attacks on John's use of the title were directly related to the patriarch's mishandling of the trial of these two clerics.
Later letters inform us that Gregory then instructed Sabinianus to speak to both John and the emperor, Maurice, about the patriarch's use of the ecumenical title. (24) But Sabinianus's embassy failed. John soon dispatched the requested documents to Rome but asserted the ecumenical title, according to Gregory, "on nearly every line." (25) Worse still, the emperor ordered the pope to "make peace with his brother and fellow-bishop John." (26) Gregory blamed Sabinianus for the breakdown in diplomacy and eventually had him transferred out of Constantinople. (27)
In the meantime, he affirmed previous instructions that Sabinianus was not to celebrate the Divine Liturgy with John unless the patriarch relented. (28)
It is important to realize that John's promotion of the title was not the only thing in the East concerning Gregory at this time. Indeed, if we are to understand why Gregory responded as he did and appreciate the evolutions in his thinking on the matter, we cannot isolate this controversy from other political and ecclesiological developments that increasingly brought Rome and the East into conflict at the close of the sixth century. And, while this is not the place to recount the history of the Roman See in the Byzantine empire, it is necessary to explore at least two additional situations that bore directly on Gregory's attitude toward the East in the spring and summer of 595.
First, we should not underestimate the impact of the fragmented political situation in Italy. (29) For much of the sixth century, the Italian peninsula was a war zone. Justinian's costly bid to reclaim the peninsula from the Goths in the middle of the century had left most of central Italy in a shambles; war, plague, and famine all took a toll. The situation only worsened when the Lombards crossed the Alps in 568. (30) Early in Gregory's pontificate, the Lombards besieged Rome. Lacking imperial support, it fell to Gregory to address the city's defenses. (31) When he managed to negotiate an armistice with the invaders early in 595, the Byzantine Exarch in Ravenna summarily accused him of treason, and the emperor subsequently characterized him as a...
|
