Page:Orthodox Eastern Church (Fortescue).djvu/408

370 as the first seven. True, the Latins would not attend, but there have always been heretics who stayed away from such councils, nor can their heresy and schism mutilate the true Church of her most important power and right. True, also, that, of the five thrones, one, and the first of them, would be empty, because its occupier has fallen away. But at Chalcedon Dioscur of Alexandria appeared only as a culprit to be judged. There seems, then, to be no conceivable reason why the Œcumenical Synod about which they are now talking — if it ever meets — should not be the equal of the old ones. Pity that it will spoil the holy number, seven, and rob the seven-branched candlestick of its prophetic symbolism.

With regard to the Primacy, all the Orthodox, of course, indignantly deny that the Bishop of Rome has any sort of authority over the whole Church. They continually repeat that the Head of the Church is not the Pope, but Christ our Lord. If this is meant as an argument, it leaves things exactly as they were. Christ our Lord is presumably the Head of each local Church, each diocese, province, and patriarchate too. Yet he has visible vicars who rule in his name — patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops. Is he not the Head of the new national Churches, too — of the Churches of Russia, Greece, Roumania? Yet here the highest law-giving authority rests with a Holy Synod which uses jurisdiction that can only come from our Lord. If our Lord, in spite of the fact that (as we all believe) he, and he only, is the Head of the Church, has vicars who rule in his name over local Churches and great patriarchates, there is no difficulty (from this consideration) in admitting that his vicars may have a head vicar set over them, as they are set over the faithful and over subordinate vicars. However, they all make much of this point, triumphantly quote such texts as