Apiarius was a priest in the diocese of Sicca who was excommunicated by Bishop Urban. Apiarius then appealed to Pope Zosmius for protection and he was admitted into the communion of the church again. Zosmius then said that Apiarius should be reinstated. The North African bishops didn't like this idea, and held a synod at Carthage (AD 418), and they decreed the following:
"If Presbyters, Deacons, or other inferior clerics complain in any causes which they may have of the judgment of their own Bishop, let the neighbouring Bishops hear them and settle the dispute. If they should desire to appeal from them they shall only do so to African Councils or to the Primates of their provinces. But whosoever should think fit to appeal to transmarine Councils may not be received into communion by any one in Africa" (Canon 17, cited in Charles Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 463)
Zosmius then cited the Sardican canons as a defense of his authority in the Apiarius situation, however, he passed them off as canons of the Council of Nicaea. The North African bishops obviously did not see these canons in their archives of the decrees of Nicaea. They held another syond at Carthage in 419 AD, where they examined this issue. Alypius, the bishop of Tagaste, said that deputies should be sent to the cities of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch and get authentic copies of the decrees of Nicaea in order to see if Zosimus' claims were true.
One of Zosimus' legates, Faustinus, did not like this idea. Instead, he thought, the synod should talk to the bishop of Rome and ask him to investigate the issue of the Nicene canons. Why would Faustinus do this? Probably, because he knew that the Sardican canons (cited as Nicene) were not in the authentic copies of the Nicene canons and that this would be damaging to the cause of Pope Zosimus. However, the Council of Carthage ignored Faustinus' proposal., and instead followed the proposal of Alypius to write to the three Sees and get copies of the decrees of Nicaea.
Later, the council wrote a letter to the then-pope Boniface, which says the following:
"‘We took care to intimate by our letter to Zosimus of venerable memory, that we would for a short time permit these rules to be observed without any injury to him until we had searched the statutes of the Nicene Council. And now we request your Holiness to cause these rules to be kept by us, as they were passed or appointed at Nicaea by the Fathers; and to cause the rules which they brought in their instructions to be carried out in your own Provinces, to wit’: here follow the fifth (al. the seventh) and the fourteenth (al. the seventeenth) ‘Sardican Canons.’ These we have, at all events, inserted in the Acts until the arrival of the most authentic copies of the Nicene Council: and should they be there contained (as the brethren sent to us from the Apostolical See have alleged in their instructions), and be even kept according to that rule by you in Italy, we could by no means be compelled either to endure such treatment as we are unwilling to mention, or could suffer what is unbearable. But we trust, by the mercy of our Lord God, that while your Holiness presides over the Roman Church, we shall not have to endure such arrogance as that—non sumus jam istum typhum passuri—and that a course of proceeding will be maintained towards us such as ought to be observed, even without our having to speak about it. A course of proceeding which, according to the wisdom and justice which the Most High has given you, you yourself see ought to be maintained, if perchance the Canons of the Nicene Council run otherwise. For though we have read very many copies, yet we never find in the Latin copies of the Nicene Council the quotations made in the above–mentioned instructions: nevertheless, as we could not find them here in any Greek copy, we the more desire they should be brought us from the Oriental Churches, where, it is said, authentic copies of the same decrees may be found. Wherefore we also beseech your Reverence to be good enough yourself to write to the Priests of those parts, that is, of the Church of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, and to others also, if your Holiness please: that these same Canons appointed by our Fathers in the city of Nicaea may reach us, you specially by the help of the Lord conferring this benefit on all the Western Churches. For who can doubt that the copies, brought from so many different places and noble Churches of Greece, which are compared, and agree, are the most authentic copies of the Nicene Council which met in Greece. Until this be done, the quotations made to us in the above–mentioned instruction, concerning the appeals of Bishops to the Priest of the Roman Church, and concerning the terminating the causes of the clergy by the Bishops of their own Provinces, we declare that we will maintain till the copies are tested; and we trust that your Blessedness will by the will of God help us in this." (Mansi, 3:830 and in Edward Denny, Papalism, pgs. 235-236)
Notice that the letter says that " a course of proceeding which, according to the wisdom and justice which the Most High has given you, you yourself see ought to be maintained, if perchance the Canons of the Nicene Council run otherwise." This shows that they viewed the bishop of Rome as obligated to obey the authentic canons of Nicaea. He was subject to church councils, just like them. This is incompatible with the Vatican I view of the papacy and church authority in history.
Further, in the acts of the Council, canon 125 shows a lack of recognition on the part of the African church of papal authority:
"it seemed good that presbyters, deacons, or other of the lower clergy who are to be tried, if they question the decision of their bishops, the neighbouring bishops having been invited by them with the consent of their bishops, shall hear them and determine whatever separates them. But should they think an appeal should be carried from them, let them not carry the appeal except to African councils or to the primates of their provinces. But whoever shall think of carrying an appeal across seas he shall be admitted to communion by no one in Africa." (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm)
"It must be noted, too, that Zosimus’ own action in citing these pretended Nicene Canons is also incompatible with Papalism, for, according to the Vatican decrees, to the Roman Pontiff as the supreme judge of all the faithful, having full and supreme power of jurisdiction, jure divino, over the universal Church, recourse may be had in all causes appertaining to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence, therefore, to allege a Canon granting such a limited power to the Roman Bishop as that quoted in the Commonitorium as the ground of his claim would have been to practically deny that he had, as the ‘legitimate successor of St. Peter,’ a grant of sovereign power from the Head of the Church; a grant essential to the maintenance of the Divine Constitution of the Church." (Edward Denny, Papalism, pgs. 236-237)
One last point is that Zosimus flaunted his alleged apostolical/Petrine authority in a letter titled Quamuis Patrum, and yet the African bishops did not care, showing that they did not view the bishop of Rome as having universal jurisdiction over the Church.
"In Quamuis Patrum, written in March 418, he deliberately flaunted his apostlic authority and claimed that no one should dispute his judgment. Such is the authority of Peter and the venerable decrees of the church that all questions concerning human and divine laws, as well as all disciplinary matters, must be referred to Rome for ultimate resolution. This was high-flown language indeed, as as far as the Africans were concerned, totally unacceptable....In late April 418, Quamuis Patrum, duly arrived at Carthage, but it hardly seemed to matter. The Africans already had their next move planned." (J.E. Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine, pg. 129)
No comments:
Post a Comment