Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/361

 CONSTANTINOPLE


 * 5ii

CONSTANTINOPLE

I L;natius ami tlie intrusion of Photius, whose violent iMi;isures against the Roman Church culminated in i\io attempted deposition (867) of Nicholas I. The .ncpssion in that year of a new emperor, Basil the .Macedonian, changed the situation, political and ec- clesiastical. Photius was interned in a monasterj-; Ignatius was recalled, and friendly relations were rc- -unicd with the Apostolic See. Both Ignativis and llasil sent representatives to Rome asking for a gen- 'ial council. After holding a Roman synod (June, Mill) in which Photius was again condemned, the pojje Milt to Constantinople three legates to preside in his name over the council. Besides the Patriarch of Con- !-iaiitinople there were present the representatives of (!n' Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem and, towards llic end, also the representatives of the Patriarch of Alixandria. The attendance of Ignatian bishops was -mall enough hi the beginning; indeed there were iM ver more than 102 bishops present.

riie legates were asked to exhibit their commission, ivliich they did: then they presented to the members I if the council the famous formula (libeUus) of Pope llnrmisdas (514-23), binding its signatories "to fol- ic iw in everything the Apostolic See of Rome and teach all its laws ... in which communion is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion". The I ithers of the council were required to sign this docu- nii lit. which had originally been drawn up to close the Aracian schism. The earlier sessions were occupied u itli the reading of important documents, the recon- I liation of Ignatian bishops who had fallen away to I'liotius, the exclusion of some Photian prelates, and ilie refutation of the false statements of two former I ii\oys of Photius to Rome. In the fifth session Pho- lius him.self unwillingly appeared, but when ques- liiiipd observed a deep silence or answered only in a \< w brief words, pretending blasphemously to imitate iIh' attitude and speech of Christ before Caiphas and I'ilate. Through his representatives he was given an- "t her hearing in the next session; they appealed to the c iiions as above the ]iope. In the seventh .session he a|i|.eared again, this time with his consecrator George .Nsbestas. They ajipealed, as before, to the ancient canons, refused to recognize the presence or authority of the Roman legates, and rejected the authority of the Roman Church, though they offered to render an aifount to the emperor. As Photius would not re- ti'iimce his usurped claim and recognize the rightful I itriarch Ignatius, the former Roman excommunica-

I lis of him were renewed by the covmcil, and he was

I I iiiished to a monastery on the Bosporus, w-hence he ■ lid not cease to denounce the council as a triumph of lying and impiety, and by a ven,' active correspond- 1 iice kept up the courage of his followers, until in 877 the death of Ignatius opened the way for his return to I ■' iwer. Iconoclasm, in its last remnants, and the in-

■ f'Tcnce of the civil authority in ecclesiastical affairs

vr- denounced by the council. The tenth and last

-ion was held in the presence of the emperor, his

son Constantme, the Bulgarian king, Michael, and

the ambassadors of Emperor Louis II.

The twenty-seven canons of this council deal partly with the situation created by Photius and partly with general points of <liscipline or abuses. The decrees of Nicholas I and .\drian II against Photius and in f ivour of Ignatius were read and confirmed, the Pho- '111 clerics deposed, and those ordained by Photius r luced to lay communion. Tlie council Issued an Kncj'clical to all the faithful, and wrote to the pope requesting his confinnation of its Acts. The papal legates signe<l its decrees, but with reservation of the papal action. Mere, for the first time, Rome recog- nized the ancient claim of Constantinople to the sec- ond place among the five great patriarchates, fireek pride, however, w.is offended by the compulsorj' signature of the aforesaid Roman formulary of recon- ciliation, and in a subsequent conference of Greek

ecclesiastical and civil authorities the newly-converted Bulgarians were declared subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and not to Rome. Though restored by the Apostolic See, Ignatius proved ungrateful, and in this important matter sided with the other Eastern patriarchs in consummating, for political reasons, a notable injustice; the territory henceforth known as Bulgaria was in reality part of the ancient lUyria that had always belonged to the Roman patriarchate until the Iconoclast Leo III (718-41) violently withdrew it and made it subject to Constantinople. Ignatius very soon consecrated an archbishop for the Bulgarians and sent thither many Greek missionaries, whereupon the Latin bishops and priests were obliged to retire. On their way home the papal legates were plundered and imprisoned ; they had, however, given to the care of Anastasius, Librarian of the Roman Church (present as a member of the Prankish embassy) most of the submission-signatures of the Greek bishops. We owe to him the Latin version of these documents and a copy of the Greek Acts of the council which he also translated and to which is due most of our document- ary knowledge of the proceedings. It was in vain that Adrian II and his successor threatened Ignatius with severe penalties if he did not withdraw from Bulgaria his Greek bishops and priests. The Roman Church never regained the vast regions she then lost. (See Photius; Ign.\tius of Constantinople ; Nich- olas T.)

Hi li.,! Miiiai n, Photius (Ratisbon, 1867-69), I, 373 aqq.. 50.-, 11, i il. II; Idem, Monunwnta Grrrca ad Pholium rjii I ' ■■! prrlinenlia (Ratisbon, 18691; Tosti. Sloria

d.ir -. , 1 . .^risma greco {Florence. lS.^)6l; Hefele, Con-

cUi.nnr^rh. i.'nd ed., Freiburg, 1877). IV. 436 sqq.; Milman (Protestant), //i.s/on/ of La(m Christianity, Bk. V, ch. iv; NoR- DEN (Protestant). Papsttum und Buzam (Berlin, 1903); For- TESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907), 156-61.

B. Particular Councils of Const.\ntinople. — I. In the summer of .382 a council of the Oriental bishops, convoked by Theodosius, met in the imperial city. We still have its important profession of faith, often wrongly attributed to the Second General Council (i. e. at Constantinople in the preceding year), ex- hibiting the doctrinal agreement of all the Christian churches; also two canons (v and vi) wrongly put among the canons of the Second General Council [Hefele-Leclercq, Hist, des Conciles, Paris, 1907, II (i), 53-56]. In the summer of the next year (383) Theodosius convoked another council, with the hope of uniting all factions anci parties among the Christians on the basis of a general acceptance of the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. He met with a qualified success (Socrates, V, 10; Hefele-Leclercq, op. cit., 63-65); among the most stubborn of those who resisted was Eimomius (see Eunomianism).

II. The council, held in 692, under Justinian II is generally known :ls the Council in Trullo, because it was held in the same domed hall where the Sixth General fbuncil had met (see above). Both the Fifth and the Sixth (ieneral (^ouncils had omitted to draw up disciplinary canons, and ;is this council was in- tended to comjjlete both in this respect, it also took the name of Quiniscxt (('oncilium Quinisextum, Xivo- Sos irtveiKT-if), i. e. Fifth-Sixth. It was attended by 215 bishops, all Orientals. Basil of Gortyna in lUyria, however, belonged to the Roman patriarchate and called himself papal legate, though no evidence is extant of his right to use a title that in the East served to clothe the decrees with Roman authority. In fact, the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council, in largo measure reaffirmations of earlier canons. Most of the new canons exhibit an inimical attitude towards ('hurches not in disciplinary accord with Constantinople, especially the Western Churches. Their customs are anathematizeil and "every little detail of difference is remembered to be condemned" (Fortescue). Canon iii of Constanti- nople (381) and canon xxviii of Chalcedon (451) are