Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/133

 BYZANTINE

101

BYZANTINE

warring elements of the period — national, local, economic, social, even personal— group themselves around the prevalent theological questions, so that it is practically impossible to say, in any given case, whether the dominant motives of the parties to the quarrel were spiritual or temporal. In all this hurly- burly of beliefs and parties three historical points have to be kept clearly before the mind, in order to understand the further development of the empire: first, the decline of Alexandrian power; secondly, the determination of the mutual relations of Rome and Constantinople; thirdly, the triumph of the civil over the ecclesiastical authority.

Thcodosius I was called the Great because he was the first emperor to act against heathenism, and also because he contributed to the victory of the fol- lowers of Athanasius over the Arians. This victory redounded to the advantage of the Patriarch of Alex- andria. Strange as it seems at the present day, every- thing pointed to the supremacy of the orthodox Patriarch of Egypt, whose proud title (Papa, et pa- triarcha Alexandria;, etc.) is now the only reminder that its bearer was once in a fair way to become the spiritual rival of Constantinople. Such, how- ever, was the case, and the common object of preventing this formed a bond between Rome and Constantinople. It was some time, it is true, before the two powers recognized .this community of in- terests. St. John Chrysostom, as Patriarch of Con- stantinople, had already felt the superior power of his Alexandrian colleague. At the Synod of the Oak, held on the Asiatic shore opposite the capital, Chrys- ostom was deposed — through the collusion of the palace with the intrigues of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, although the people soon compelled his recall to the patriarchal sec, and it was only as the result of fresh complications that he was perma- nently removed (404). Nestorius, one of his suc- cessors, fared even worse. At that time Alexandria was ruled by Cyril, nephew of Theophilus, and the equal of his uncle and predecessor both in intellec- tual and in political talents. Nestorius had declared himself against the new and. as he asserted, idolatrous, expression "Mother of Clod" (Theotokos), thereby opposing the sentiments and wishes of the humbler people. Cyril determined to use this opportunity to promote the further exaltation of Alexandria at the expense of Constantinople. \t the Third (Ecumen- ical Council of Ephesus (431), Cyril received the hearty support of Pope Celesttne's representatives. Moreover, the Syrians, who were opponents of Alex- andria, did not champion Nestorius energetically. The Patriarch of Constantinople proved the weaker, and ended his life in exile. It now seemed as though

Alexandria had gained her object. At the Second Council of EphesUS (the "Robber Council'' of 440) Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, led already been hailed by a bishop of Asia Minor as "(Ecumenical Vrchbishop ", when the energetic policy of Pope

Leo I, the ( treat, and the death of the Emperor Thco- dosius II brought about a change in the trend of af- fairs. Marcian, the new emperor, came to an under- standing with Leo; a reconciliation bad already been effected with Home through the drawing up of a con- fession of faith, which was presented to the Synod of

Chalcedon, the great fourth (Ecumenical Coun- cil (4.">1). Viewed from the standpoint of old Rome the result was most successful; Dioscorus of Alex- andria was deposed and exiled, and the danger of an all-powerful Alexandrian patriarch was averted.

The Patriarch of New Rome Constantinople — could .also be satisfied. The solution of the question was less advantageous to the Byzantine Empire. When the ( ireeks entered into communion with the Western Church, tie reaction of the Egyptians, Syrians, and Other Oriental peoples was all the more pronounced. "Anti-Chalcedonians" was the term appropriated

by everyone in Asia who took sides against the Greek imperial Church, and the outcome of the whole affair demonstrated once more the impossibility of a compromise between the ideal of a universal, and that of a national Church.

The second point, the rivalry between Constanti- nople and Rome, can be discussed more briefly. Naturally, Rome had the advantage in every respect. But, for the division of the empire the whole question would never have arisen. But Theodosius I, as early as the Second (Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381), had the decision made that New Rome should take precedence immediately after old Rome. This was the first expression of the theory that Con- stantinople should be supreme among the Churches of the East. The first to attempt to translate this thought into action was John Chrysostom. As he undertook the campaign against Alexandria, so he was also able to bring the still independent Church of Asia Minor under the authority of Constanti- nople. On a missionary journey he made the See of Ephesus, founded by St. John the Apostle, a suffragan of his patriarchate. We can now under- stand why the war against the Alexandrians was prosecuted with such bitterness. The defeat of Alexandria at the Council of Chalcedon established the supremacy of Constantinople. To be sure, this supremacy was only theoretical, as it is a matter of history that from this time forward the Oriental Churches assumed a hostile attitude towards the Byzantine imperial Church. As for Rome, protests had already been made at Chalcedon against the twenty-first canon of the Eighth General Council, which set forth the spiritual precedence of Con- stantinople. This protest was maintained until the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders put an end to the pretentions of the Greek Church. Pope Innocent III (121.5) confirmed the grant to the Pa- triarch of Constantinople of the place of honour after Rome.

We now come to the third point: the contest between ecclesiastical and civil authority. In this particular, also, the defeat of Alexandria was sig- nal. Since the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon it had been decided that in the East (it was other- wise in the West) the old Roman custom, by which the emperor had the final decision in ecclesiastical matters, should continue. That was the end of the matter at Byzantium, and we need not be surprised to find that before long dogmatic disputes were de- cided by arbitrary imperial decrees, that laymen, princes, and men who had held high state offices were promoted to ecclesiastical offices, and that spiritual affairs were treated as a department of the Government. But it must not be supposed that the Byzantine Church was then-fore silenced. The popular will found a means of asserting itself most emphatically, concurrently with the official ad- ministration of ecclesiastical affairs. The monks in particular showed the greatest fearlessness in op- posing their ecclesiastical superiors as well as the civil authority.

(1) (b) Dynasties of Justinian and Tiberius; 518- 610.

Justin I

Justinian I Theodora.

Soph

Sophia

co-Emperor: Tiberius II

Mauritius Constant ina

The above table once more contains the names of