-This council was held probably in the year 343 to settle some of the matters in the Arian crisis. It was convened at the request of Pope Julius. It was attended by Hosius of Cordova. It dealt with the case of the deposed Athanasius and the doctrinal issues surrounding the Council of Nicea.
Here are the three canons from Sardica which are commonly cited by Roman apologists as evidence for the papacy:
"Hosius the Bishop said: ‘This also must necessarily be added, that Bishops do not cross from their own province into another province in which they are not Bishops, unless, perchance, they have been invited by their brethren, lest we seem to shut the door of charity. That if in any province any Bishop have a cause against his brother and fellow–bishop, neither shall call in Bishops from another province as arbiters. That if any of the Bishops has been condemned in any cause, and considers that he has not a weak but a sound cause that a judgment may be had anew on it, if it please your Piety, let us honour the memory of the Apostle Peter, that it should be written by those who have tried the cause to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, a fresh court may be opened by Bishops bordering on the province, and he may appoint judges. But if it cannot be proved that his cause is such as to require re–hearing, the first decision is not to be questioned, but what has been done is to stand good.’ " (Canon 3)
"Bishop Gaudentius said: ‘If pleasing to you, it shall be added to this judgment which you, Hosius, have brought forward, which is full of pure love, that if a Bishop has been deposed by the sentence of those Bishops who were in the neighbourhood, and he desires again to defend himself, no other shall be appointed to his See until the Bishop of Rome has judged and decided thereupon.’" (Canon 4)
"Hosius the Bishop said: ‘Does it please also that if a Bishop has been accused and the Bishops of that region have judged him, and deposed him, and since his deposition he has appealed and had recourse to the Bishop of the Roman Church, and is willing that he should hear him; if he should consider it just that the examination of the matter should be renewed, let him deign to write to his fellow–bishops who are nearest the province, that they may carefully and with diligence investigate all things and give a just sentence in accordance with the truth in the matter. But if any one who asks that his cause should be heard again should move with his petition the Bishop of the Romans that he should send Presbyters de latere suo, that it should be in the power of that Bishop as he considers and determines to be right to send those who, with the Bishops, should judge, having the authority of him by whom they were sent. But if he should consider the Bishops sufficient for the termination of the matter, he shall do as seems fit to his most wise counsel. " (Canon 5)
These three canons are in a sense "bound up" together and closely related to one another.
The things given to the bishop of Rome (concerning an appellate jurisdiction) are limited.
First, the whole situation here is concerning a bishop who has been deposed, not just any case whatsoever. It is in this specific situation where the Sardican canons assert rights to the Roman bishop. This is admitted by the Roman Catholic church historian Charles Hefele:
"The canons of Sardica only speak of an appeal in one case, namely, when a bishop was deposed by his comprovincials; other cases are not mentioned at all, and, as a glance at the text of the canons unquestionably shows, in all other cases the appeal is neither affirmed nor denied." (Charles Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, Vol II, pg. 125)
Furthermore, the thing granted to the bishop of Rome is not to simply say "yes" or "no" on behalf of himself only, and then the case is closed. Rather the Roman bishop is given the power to appoint a new court consisting (at least) of the bishops from the province in question. Hefele also admits this:
"The Ballerini and Palma further maintain that these canons also ascribe to the Pope the right of transferring the whole process, with its investigation, upon such an appeal being made, to Rome, and of himself deciding, therefore, without the presence of the neighbouring bishops. The canons nowhere say this ; what they expressly insist upon is, that to the Pope belongs the appointment of a second court, for which he is to designate bishops from the neighbouring province, but may also appoint legates of his own. Even when in those three canons a decision of Rome is spoken of in general terms only, as for instance at the end of the fourth, this cannot be understood in a sense favourable to Palma and the Ballerini ; for the true meaning is, that the Pope alone, and in his own person, decides whether the appeal shall be allowed, and a second judgment ordered or not. In this last case he confirms the sentence of the first court ; in the other, he orders the second investigation ; but that he himself, instead of the court appointed by him, should conduct the investigation of the second court, is nowhere said. Further on, indeed, at the end of the fifth canon, these words occur "The Pope shall do what seems to him good" but neither by this are we to understand that the Pope should himself conduct the second investigation, but that he should decide whether or not to send his own legates to the court of appeal." (Hefele, History, II:125)
Plus, canon 9 of Chalcedon appears to give a similar privilege (though not in the exact same situation) to Constantinople.
Another reason why these canons do not prove the papacy is that they are giving the Roman bishop rights out of honor, not out of seeing some sort of inherent authority in Rome. It is seen as something "new". Here is why:
In canon 3 (Latin version), Hosius asks "is this the pleasure of all?", to which the synod replies in the affirmative. If it is true that the Sardican fathers viewed the papacy as being of Divine institution from the Lord Jesus Christ, then asking "is this the pleasure of all?" seems to be a rather arrogant thing to do/say. A similar thing is said in canon 4 where bishop Gaudentius begins the decree by saying "if it seems good to you." Such a language seems to be arrogant on the part of the Sardican fathers if they thought of the bishop of Rome has having the rights inherent in his authority by Divine institution. It makes more sense that the rights they giving the Roman bishop were something new.
"But in the first place this authority is not here acknowledged as a right already existing in practice. It is conferred as a new power, and that merely as an honorary right, and as pertaining only to the bishop Julius in person." Otherwise, either this bishop would not be expressly named, or his successors would be named with him. Furthermore, the canons limit the appeal to the case of a bishop deposed by his comprovincials, and say nothing of other cases." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume III, pg. 311)
"Strictly speaking, Rome is not yet established as a genuine court of appeal because it is not the Roman bishop himself who makes a new decision in the case. Rome is only a reviewing authority to see to it that the appeal (to a different synod) is carried out." (Klaus Schatz, Papal Primary: From its Origins to the Present [The Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN 1996], pg. 25)
"...the council of Sardica...sanctioned appeals to the Roman see, not indeed as appertaining to it by divine right, but from mere "respect to the memory of the apostle Peter." (Edmund Salusbury Ffoulkes, A Manual of Ecclesiastical History, from the First to the Twelfth Century Inclusive, pg. 122, source)
"Equally fundamental, however, is the fact that there is no previous or contemporary evidence that such extraordinary authority as complete jurisdiction over all cases of deposition was anywhere at that time conceded to the Roman bishop. Even the prerogative claimed by Julius himself, quoted by Caspar in connection with canon IIIc, is not this extensive. Certainly the African rejection of Roman jurisdiction in the early fifth century regarding the case of Apiarius of Sicca shows that the acceptance of the then explicit claims of jurisdiction by Rome was slow in coming. Caspar's contention that canons IV and V are a recognition of Julius' right to act as sole judge is not only lacking in historical evidence, but is in fact vitiated by the phrase called upon to support it. Rather than acclaiming the ‘just judgement’ of Julius, the Serdican bishops write: ‘it became evident that the decision of our brother and fellow bishop Julius [concerning communion with Athanasius] was a just one.’ Nothing is here implied about either the ability or the right of Julius to judge in any capacity other than that of their fellow bishop." (Hamilton Hess, The Early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica [Oxford University Press 2002], pg. 198)
Decades ago, there were some people who questioned the genuiness of the Sardican canons altogether. C.H. Turner, in particular, responded to many of the arguments that were put forward. I would probably say that the canons are genuine. I have not done incredibly intense study on that particular issue, however. I am open to either side. Obviously, if the Sardican canons are not genuine, then the entire Roman argument is destroyed. However, this article has shown on the assumption that the canons are genuine, that they still do not prove the papacy.
The Synod's Letter to Pope Julius
Charles Hefele gives a footnote where he discusses this passage and some opinions of scholars concerning it:
"...Blondell held this passage - Hoc enim optimum et valde congruentissimum esse videbitur, si ad caput, i.e. ad Petri Apostoli sedem de singulis quibusque provindis domini referant sacerdotes - to be an interpolation, on account of its barbarous Latin, i.e. valde congruentissimum (Blondell, De Primatu Ecclesice, p. 106). Kemi Ceillier (Histoire Generate, etc., t. iv. p. 696), on the other hand, remarked that the barbarous Latin might be explained by the supposition that the letter had been first written in Greek, and that we have only a translation. But Remi Ceillier could not deny that this sentence interrupted the train of thought of the letter, and looked like something inserted in parenthesis. Bower (History of the Popes, vol. i. p. 192) and Fuchs (Biblioth. der Kirchenvers. vol. ii. p. 128) have urged this still more strongly ; the latter especially has confidently urged the conjecture that this sentence was originally a gloss added ad marginem by a reader of the letter, and taken into the text by a later copyist. But Remi Ceillier, in order to save the sentence, says that the Synod had only intended by these words to point en passant to its decision with regard to the appeal to Rome. " (Charles Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, Vol II, pgs. 163-64 n. 7)
(Hefele gives comments on the passage at page 96)
I do not know what Hefele's personal opinion on the authenticity of this passage in the letter to Julius from Sardica is. However, he doesn't seem to dispute the opinions of the scholars who doubt its authenticity in the footnote quoted above. If you pay attention to his tone and language that he uses, it seems to lean more "in favor" of the scholars who doubt the passage's authenticity. But then again, it is quite possible that Hefele did indeed view it as authentic. Nonetheless, I think the fact that the passage is completely out of context with the flow of thought in the letter does seem to argue against its authenticity. Here is the letter in its context:
"That which has been our constant belief hitherto, remains our present conviction; experience serves to prove and confirm, what each of us has only heard with our ears. For those words are true, which the most blessed apostle Paul, teacher of the Gentiles, spake concerning himself : "Ye seek a proof of him, that speaketh in me, even Christ", though in fact, since the Lord Christ dwelt in him, there can be no doubt that the Spirit spoke through his mind and used his body as a means of utterance. So, well-beloved brother, though parted from us in the body, You were present with us in a harmony of thought and will; the explanation of your absence was both reasonable and expected, otherwise you might have been attacked by schismatic wolves, with treacherous wiles, or yelped at by heretical curs raving with madness, or insulted by the devil's poisonous blasphemies, a serpent in very deed. For it will seem best and highly appropriate, if the Lord's bishops, each from his own province, report to the head, that is to the see of Peter the Apostle'" (found in Trevor Jalland, The Church and the Papacy, pgs. 221-22)
Notice that the passage is not very much in line with the flow of thought of the letter. It simply appears there suddenly and unexpectedly, thus arguing against its authenticity.
Here is further a quote from Archibald Bower's book History of the Popes (volume 1):
 |
| Bower, History of the Popes, volume I, pg. 121 |
No comments:
Post a Comment