The Greek Schism [pp. 758-774]

TIte GreYk Schi~rn. 759
Rome. But this council has been guished, retaining, ho wever, the seheld to be general only in its dogma- cond place;" and then confers ectic definitions, since, as St. Gregory il~e clesiastical jurisdiction on the Bishop
Great * says, "The Roman Church of Constantinople over the dioceses
neither has received nor accepted of in Pontus, Asia Minor, and Thrace,
its decrees or acts, with the exception and those that might afterward be
of its definitions against Macedonius." "erected among the barbarians." The
In point of fact, it was a local synod, fathers, however, petitioned St. Leo
neither convoked nor presided over the Great for the approval of this reby the holy see, and has been called gulation, alleging the good of religion
cecumenical only on account of the as their motive. But that great ponsubsequent approbation of its dog- tiff promptly "annulled their action
matic decrees by the same supreme by the authority of St. Peter," as conauthority. Its canon about the dig- trary to the canon of Nice, remarknity of the Bishop of Constantinople ing at the same time that ecclesiastithus fell to the gr6und. Pope Boni- cal questions were not regiilated on
face I. (A.D. 418-422) insisted on the the same plan as secular affairs, and
observance of the order of dignity that the Bishop of Constantinople
between the great sees established ought to be satisfied with the impeby the Council of Nice, according to rial privileges of his city, without diswhich Alexandria held the second, turbing church discipline, and invadand Antioch the third place. The ing the long-acknowledged rights of
same rule was adopted by Xystus III. others. The obnoxious canon is not
and other pontiffs. However, the to be found in the most ancient and
powerful prelates of the impenal city best collections, though, in practice,
did not relinquish their ambitious the bishops of Constantinople always
views. The general council of Chal- availed themselves of the privileges
cedon (A.D. 451) passed two canons, it attempted to grant them.
-by which it permitted any cleric who This uncanonical usurpation gave
felt himself aggrieved to appeal to rise to a serious controversy toward
the see of "the imperial city, Con- the end of the century Acacius,
stantinople~" and besides, enacted il~e Bishop of Constantinople, relying on
celebrated twenty-eighth canon in the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcewhich the unfortunate principle that don, interfered in the election and
afterward led to schism was more consecration of the patriarchs of Alopenly avowed. Having cited the ca- exandria and Antioch. He was also
non of the first council of Constan- accused and convicted of favoring the
tinople, it reaffirms it. "Since the fa- Eutychian heretics. For these causes
thers have justly granted privileges he was condemned and deposed
to the see of ancient Rome, because by Pope Felix III. (A.D. 484.) The
it was the imperial city, for the same oriental bishops continued, howe~er,
reason the fathers of the second ge- to retain his name in the commemoneral council granted equal privileges ration at mass, (sacris dtAtyc/~is,) and
to the episcopal throne of new Rome, the popes, on this account, refused to
rightly judging that the city which is communicate with them, until the
honored by the impenal presence and pontificate of Hormisdas, when they
the senate, and enjoys equal privileges submitted to the holy see, erased the
with old Rome, should in ecclesi- obnoxious name from the sacred reastical matters also he equally distin- cords, and subscribed a formula of
* Epist. 34, lib. 7. faid~, in which they professed their