The Council of Nicaea is perhaps the greatest of all of the ecumenical councils. Everyone (Romanists, Protestants, as well as the Eastern "Orthodox") all agree on the authority of Nicaea in 325 AD. However, it is also an argument against the papacy when one recognizes the council's relationship to Pope Sylvester, who was the bishop of Rome at that time period.
Generally, it is acknowledged that Nicaea did not receive papal confirmation. Many church historians confirm this reality:
"Only in the seventh and eighth centuries did the legend arise that Sylvester, bishop of Rome, was responsible, although there may have been extensive discussions between the emperor and the principal bishops over the matter....That Ossius alone signed before the papal legates at Nicaea was due to his special position as imperial counsel as well as the fact that he was a bishop, the legates being only priests. As Dvornik admits, it cannot be proved conclusively that Senatorial procedure was followed point by point at Nicaea, but it was followed by local councils before Nicaea and at the subsequent six general councils." (Leo Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology [Michael Glazier Inc., 1987], pgs. 56-57)
Often a letter attributed to Hosius of Cordova is appealed to (and two Roman priests) where they allegedly request Sylvester to approval the council of Nicaea. However, it is known that this letter was a forgery and inauthentic. The Roman Catholic historian Charles Hefele (though he argues for the papacy) admits this fact (A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 1, pg. 44).
Other sources tell us that the president over the council was either Constantine or Hosius (not Pope Sylvester):
"Of the great Hosius , who answers to his name, that confessor of a happy old age, it is superfluous for me to speak, for I suppose it is known unto all men that they caused him also to be banished; for he is not an obscure person, but of all men the most illustrious, and more than this. When was there a Council held, in which he did not take the lead , and by right counsel convince every one?" (Athanasius, Apologia de Fuga, section 5)
Furthermore, Mansi gives us two lists of the bishops' signatures to the Nicene creed. And Hosius' name is first in both of these lists (Mansi 2:692 and Mansi 2:697)
9 comments:
The Council of Nicaea did indeed receive papal confirmation, however this article seems to primarily question the role of the Pope in convening and presiding over the Council, not ratifying its decrees. That being said, the primacy of the Roman Pontiff was still present.
Although Fr. Leo Donald Davis was a good scholar and stated that Pope St. Sylvester was not responsible for the convening of the Council, and says on p. 58 of the same work that you cite that Hosius of Cordoba was not a papal legate at the council as was once commonly thought, this claim cannot be said to be incontrovertible from the testimony of history. For example, Gelasius of Cyzicus, an ecclesiastical historian writing around 475 AD, states:
"Hosius himself, the famous Beacon of the Spaniards, held the place of Sylvester, bishop of great Rome, along with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincent, as they held council with the many [bishops]." (Historia Concilii Nicaeni, bk. II, c. v (Patrologia Graeca 85:1229))
His testimony is to be acknowledged, since he was far closer to the time of the Council, and was likely drawing on earlier sources from Gelasius of Caesarea.
We must also not forget that Fr. Davis was a Catholic scholar who acknowledged that the presidency of the Roman Pontiff over the entire Church was present in its early days.
Contemporary historian Dr. Warren H. Carroll also inclines towards the fact that Hosius presided over the Council as a papal legate. He says, largely due to the circumstances surrounding the Council, that:
"The recommendation for a general or ecumenical council . . . had probably already been made to Constantine by Ossius [Hosius], and most probably to Pope Silvester as well . . . Ossius presided over its deliberations; he probably, and two priests of Rome certainly, came as representatives of the Pope." (The Building of Christendom, Christendom College Press, 1987, 11)
And it is interesting that you refer to Karl Hefele, since he states on the exact same page that you quoted that Hosius was a papal legate and argues that Pope St. Sylvester most probably approved the acts of the Council by a special act, not just for "the papacy," as you said.(https://archive.org/details/councils00hefeuoft/page/n61/mode/2up).
And, to the last point, it is widely acknowledged that the Bishops of Rome did not physically attend any of the first seven Ecumenical Councils (except potentially Pope St. Agatho at the Council of Constantinople III), however their presidency was manifested in their legates. It is also noteworthy that in the list of those in attendance, immediately after the name of Hosius, the names of the Roman legates and priests Vito (Victor) and Vincent are listed first.
Hello, Xavier. Thank you for reading my blog and taking the time to comment.
I figured you would bring up Warren H. Carroll. This is the same argument made by Dave Armstrong. However, this is one scholar in contrast to many others. I know of no other scholar who has claimed that Nicaea had papal confirmation.
Regarding Gelasius of Cyzicus, I did some research on this and as far as I can tell, the "History of the Council of Nicaea" attributed to him is an anonymous work. The first time this is attributed to Gelasius of Cyzicus is from Photios of Constantinople centuries later (https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/gelasius_of_cyzicus.htm). Not only that, but the earliest manuscripts of it are about a millennium (1000 years) removed from the 4th century (the date given to this document).
Furthermore, note the following comment from church historian David John Williams:
"The history [of Gelasius of Cyzicus] contains a number of errors and anachronisms." (David John Williams, "Gelasius of Cyzicus", in J.D. Douglas, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, pg. 404)
Thus, the actual author of this work is likely unknown and is generally an unreliable work (though not necessarily entirely).
Also, I have not been able to get a copy of Warren Carroll's book. Can you show me a link to it or something along those lines?
I want to see primary source evidence that Hosius was the legate for Sylvester at Nicaea. So far, I have not found anything, but rather that Hosius himself (and by himself) was the one who presided over the council (a conclusion I came to based off of Athanasius and signatures of the bishops of Nicaea in Mansi's set containing the acts of all of the ancient councils in their entirety).
Also, I know that Hefele did indeed believe Hosius was a papal legate. I merely quoted him to show that he acknowledges that the main documents often used by defenders of the papacy in church history for asserting that idea are not authentic.
"One scholar in contrast to many others" is not a valid argument. That is an argumentum ad populum.
I am not sure of your point regarding the manuscript tradition. If you are arguing for an interpolation, you will need to substantiate that. The author of the work mentions the recent controversy regarding Basiliscus which took place in 475-476 AD, so the internal evidence points to this not being an entirely later work.
Please provide examples of these anachronisms and errors (even still, this would not discount the work as entirely unreliable, which you acknowledge).
Hosius presiding over the Council is not an issue. It is the question of whether or not he was a legate. Judging from the Council of Ephesus, which took place a little more than a century later, we see the similar practice of Pope St. Celestine appointing the Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Cyril, as legate. Unless you hold to some sort of rupture theory, in which each century of Church history has some departure from the tradition of the previous, it is quite unfounded to believe that this was an accretion, since St. Cyril acknowledges the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in accordance with ancient custom. Furthermore, it is even more unlikely that a Western bishop from Cordoba would not be presiding in the place of the acknowledged Head of the West, given this information. We have an early historian, who drew from even earlier sources, telling us that Hosius presided in the place of Pope St. Sylvester. Because of this, demanding a primary source (something written by Sylvester of Hosius themselves?) seems to me to be quite arbitrary.
Neither Mansi or St. Athanasius contradict the idea that Hosius was a papal legate. That is an argument from silence.
Even with quoting Hefele in that regard, it would have been good to provide arguments as well.
Now my question to you is: Do you have any contemporaneous historical source that contradicts the idea of Hosius presiding in the place of Pope St. Sylvester? I have given you one that is relatively contemporaneous and drawing on earlier sources in support of my position.
(Correction on my earlier comment: The Council of Constantinople I, which was not initially meant to be an Ecumenical Council, did not have Western representation, but it received papal ratification later and was received by the Church. Emperor Theodosius I's words do seem to indicate that he regarded the faith of Rome as the standard for orthodoxy, nonetheless.)
In this case, the burden of proof is on you to give evidence from primary sources that Hossius of Cordoba presided as Sylvester's legate at Nicaea.
Also, arguing from the Council of Ephesus back into Nicaea does not work. I understand where you are coming from, but I really just do not see how the logic follows there.
I have already discussed the case of Cyril and Celestine with you by the way. I am still waiting for you to respond to my argument concerning the difference between "auctoritas" (the word Celestine uses when he says he is appropriating his "authority" to Cyril of Alexandria) and "potestas" (the actual word which carries the idea of jursidictional power, in contrast to "auctoritas" which is about moral authority, as is proved from things like Pope Gelasius' letter to Anastasius where he clearly teaches a distinction between these two concepts.
Regardless, I do not want to get too moved away from the topic of Hosius, Sylvester, and Nicaea. The bottom-line is this, my friend: the burden of proof is on you to give evidence from primary sources (not just one rogue scholar) that Hosius was Sylvester's legate. What evidence does Warren Carrol give for his assertions? (so far I have not been able to get a hold of his book, though I may be able to soon when I visit the university library near me which contains three floors of books on church history and Christian theology).
I have already given you relatively contemporaneous from Gelasius of Cyzicus, and I asked you for specific things which you did not provide.
Saying that it "does not work" is not a valid argument. You did not demonstrate how my reasoning was fallacious. Do you have a valid argument?
I have responded to that claim already by showing that the context of the Council of Ephesus was one of jurisdictional power, not just moral authority. As well as this, we know that at the Synod of Hippo in 393, 'auctoritas' is used with regard to jurisdictional authority. In Canon 5, power to decide cases is stated by virtue of its full authority (plena auctoritas). We read in Latin:
"Ut propter causas ecclesiasticas, quae ad perniciem plebium saepe ueterescunt, singulis quibusque annis concilium conuocetur, ad quod omnes prouinciae quae primas sedes habent de conciliis suis ternos legatos mittant, ut minus inuidiosi minusque hospitibus sumptuosi conuentus plena possit auctorias esse. De Tripolo uero propter inopiam episcoporum, unus episcopus ueniat."
This is besides the point anyway. Pope St. Gelasius is also very against you when it comes to papal primacy of jurisdiction, so appealing to him on this matter is not helpful.
Again, you use pejoratives like "rogue scholar" as though this is not simply an argumentum ad populum. Unfortunately, it seems like your entire argument is based on the fact that most Protestant scholars agree on this issue, rather than the details themselves.
Please respond to my requests this time, I will restate them only once:
Please provide examples of anachronisms and errors in Gelasius of Cyzicus' History (even still, this would not discount the work as entirely unreliable, which you acknowledge).
Explain how Mansi and St. Athanasius contradict the idea that Hosius was the papal legate of Pope St. Sylvester.
Do you have any contemporaneous historical source that contradicts the idea of Hosius presiding in the place of Pope St. Sylvester? I have given you one that is relatively contemporaneous and draws on earlier sources in support of my position.
A few comments:
1) What primary source evidence does Warren Carroll give in his book in support of Hossius being a legate for Pope Sylvester at Nicaea?
2) I am familiar with the Council of Hippo canon. This is the exact argument that Erick Ybarra made. However, this is one usage in contrast to tons of others (Marius Victorinus, Pope Gelasius, etc.) You found one example of auctoritas being used in the same way as potestas. Nonetheless, their semantic distinction is still true. See Karla Pollmann's paper "Christianity and Authority in Late Antiquity: The Transformation of the Concept of Auctoritas". It can be found in this book: https://books.google.com/books?id=baXFAgAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gbs_navlinks_s
3) I originally cited Athanasius and Mansi in response (in my article) to people who might assume that Sylvester was the person who presided over Nicaea. I was not dealing with the issue of whether or not Hosius was a papal legate or not. I agree with you that there is a difference between those two concepts.
So you did not respond to my requests. That’s fine, no need to carry on then. This will be my last comment here. I think you have sufficiently demonstrated that there is little basis for your claims by your lack of responses.
All I needed was one example to contradict your point regarding ‘auctoritas’ (the context of the Council of Ephesus should be enough for anyone who is familiar with it anyway, a universal excommunication is not an act of “moral authority,” but of jurisdictional power).
I do not know of anyone who makes the claim that Pope St. Sylvester was literally at the Council and presiding in person. As I said, the Bishop of Rome did not physically attend any of the Councils except maybe Constantinople III, his authority was manifested in legates.
"Ossius of Cordoba, who was present [at Nicaea] as an imperial counselor and not as papal legate, as was once thought." (Leo Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology, pg. 58)
Post a Comment