Page:Orthodox Eastern Church (Fortescue).djvu/66

32 But fifty-six years later, when the second general council met at Constantinople itself (381), things had changed. Nectarius was Bishop, now no longer of Byzantium, but of New Rome, and already there was growing up among the Eastern bishops some jealousy of the Roman Patriarch. So they thought to make perhaps some counterpoise to his great authority by exalting their Greek fellow-countryman in the city of Cæsar. Now we must here first of all remember that of all the councils that we count as œcumenical, two became so only through the later acceptance of the whole Church and of the Pope. These two were the second (this one, Constantinople I in 381) and the fifth (Constantinople II in 553). The Council of 381, then, was œcumenical neither in its summoning nor in its sessions. It was a comparatively small synod of one hundred and fifty Eastern bishops, summoned by the Emperor Theodosius I (379–395). There were no Latin bishops present, the See of Rome was not represented; the presidents of the council were, first, Meletius of Antioch, then St. Gregory of Nazianzum, then Nectarius of Constantinople. At the Synod of Ariminium in 359, for instance, more than four hundred bishops were present. We must also note that the Church of Rome, and the West generally, only accepted the dogmatic definition of the Council of Constantinople and not its disciplinary Canons. The 3rd Canon, then, has for us Catholics only a historic interest, as a step in the process by which the claims of Constantinople were gradually accepted by the other Eastern bishops. Indeed, this 3rd Canon was quite specially rejected by the Pope. It says this: "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because that city is New Rome . It is not quite easy to understand exactly what this Canon means. But whatever it may be that these Fathers meant to give to the Bishop of Constantinople, they made no pretence about the