The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) and the Papacy

 

The Convocation of the Council

Emperor Theodosius II was the one who convened the council at Ephesus. More than that, the Emperor's synodal letter to all of the metropolitans forbid any new decisions to be made by anyone whatsoever (Mansi 4:1111-1116)

The Presidency of the Council

The council was presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria. The obvious argument from the Romanists is that Cyril acted as Celestine's legate, which I think is true in one sense and false in another sense. Allow me to explain:

[1]. It is unquestionable that Arcadius, Projectus, and Philip (a presbyter) were Celestine's (main) legates at Ephesus. This is made clear in the synod's letter to Pope Celestine:

" For there were sitting with us the most reverend bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and with them the most holy presbyter Philip, all of whom were sent by your holiness, who gave to us your presence and filled the place of the Apostolic See (τῆς ἀποστολικῆς καθέδρας)" (The Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine)

Furthermore, in the list of the bishop's signatures (Mansi 4:1303), Arcadius and Projectus are the only ones termed "legates". 

[2]. "Now, in considering this question, it is to be observed that in the absence of the Bishop of the First See in rank at a Council which had to investigate charges against the Bishop of the Second See in rank, the office of President would naturally fall to the Bishop of Alexandria." (Denny, Papalism, pg. 141)

[3.] The letter of the council of Ephesus to Theodosius II seems to say that Cyril was representing Alexandria at the council. 

[4]. Cyril's relationship to Celestine at this council is similar to how Flavian of Philippi presided in the place of Rufus of Thessalonica (Mansi 2:1224).

At the same time, many sources say Cyril acted in Celestine's place and thus my final conclusion would be that Cyril was representing both Rome and Alexandria at the Council of Ephesus based off of the available data. 

The Council's Overall Attitude

[1]. The fact that the council still examined Nestorius (even inviting him to take his seat amongst the other bishops at one point) in despite of the fact that Celestine's ten-day chance given to Nestorius to repent had expired, shows that they did not view Pope Celestine as being the final authority in the controversy. 

[2]. At the council, Cyril's second letter to Nestorius was examined, and only after it had been examined to see if it agreed with the creed of Nicaea, was it approved:

"The Nicene Creed, and the letter of Cyril, in all things agree and harmonise" (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.ii.html)

This is in spite of the fact that Pope Celestine had already approved of the letter, as can be seen by his correspondence with St. Cyril. 

[3]. Charles Hefele (a Roman Catholic church historian) describes in detail the examination of Nestorius at the council:

"In  order,  however,  to  submit  the  doctrinal  point  in  question to  a  thorough  investigation,  and  in  the  light  of  patristic testimony,  at  the  suggestion  of  Flavian,  Bishop  of  Philippi,  a number  of  passages  from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the Church  were  now  read,  in  which  the  ancient  faith  respecting the  union  of  the  Godhead  and  manhood  in  Christ  was  expressed." (A History of the Councils of the Church, Vol. 3, pg. 48)

The fact that such a thorough investigation took place even though Celestine had already given his judgment on the matter shows once again that the bishops of Ephesus didn't view Roman bishop as the final arbiter in controversies and schisms. 

"Compelled" by Celestine?

Erick Ybarra cites the following passage from the decree of the council against Nestorius as proof that they recognized Celestine as having ultimate papal authority and power:

"As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines. We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to. Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter (ἀναγκαίως κατεπειχθέντες ἀπό τε τῶν κανόνων, καὶ ἐκ τὴς ἐπιστολῆς, κ.τ.λ.) of our most holy father and fellow-servant Cœlestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion.” (Decree of the Council Against Nestorius)

The argument is obvious: the decree says they were compelled by Celestine's letter shows that they viewed it as the final arbiter. 

Not quite. At least, not when we recognize these facts:

[1]. The "canons" (which is likely a reference canon 74 of the Apostolic Canons) and Celestine's letter are mentioned in the same sentence/breath, which is more significant than many might realize at first glance. This seems to imply that they are on equal footing since both of them "compel" (some have suggested translating the Greek word κατεπειχθέντες as meaning "to urge" or "to press hard". I personally think the translation here does not affect the overall meaning) the bishops to make their final decision/judgment, which is obviously in conflict with what Roman Catholicism teaches today about the authority of the pope of Rome. 

[2]. The title "holy father" is also applied to Cyril and others (Mansi 6:1055; 7:265; 493), though whether or not Roman Catholic apologists would use this as their main argument is debatable.