Milton V. Anastos|
Constantinople and Rome
A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches.
M. Anastos, Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome), Ashgate Publications, Variorum Collected Studies Series, 2001. ISBN: 0 86078 840 7.
23. The popes and temporal power: Summary and epilogue
In the long and complicated history of the relations between Constantinople and Rome, it is possible to discern a pattern that changed hardly at all in over a thousand years. At almost every stage of the development since the end of the second century, we find the pope of Rome seeking to exercise authority of universal scope and demanding recognition as sole and absolute ruler. This he did for many reasons. But one factor in his exalted view of the papal prerogatives was that he was in many ways the heir, if not the successor, of the Roman emperors, who once had ruled the world from the imperial city of Rome. For, despite the fall of the western Roman Empire in 476, with the consequent impoverishment and loss of power, Rome itself never lost its prestige, and continued to haunt the imagination of men throughout the Middle Ages. As the first capital of the Empire, it remained a glorious name long after it had lost all political significance, and the pope of Rome was one of the chief beneficiaries of the aura of greatness with which his city was thus invested.
The Roman see always insisted that its position at the head of the western Church was unaffected by political considerations of this sort. But the historian cannot fail to recognize their importance, although he must at the same time concede that the growth of the Roman primacy was accelerated greatly also by the Roman claim to have been founded by Peter, the "Prince of the Apostles." Equal importance should be attached to both of these factors.
As heirs of the Roman imperial government, enthroned in the first capital of the
Empire, the popes developed and extended such rights, as they believed were granted them in Matthew 16.18-19, the canons of Sardica, and similar documents until they created out of them a doctrine that the pope of Rome was supreme over both Church and State. They added emphasis, refinements, and embellishments, but the basic principles of papal supremacy enunciated by such men as Gregory VII (1073-85), Innocent III (1198-1216), and Boniface VIII (1294-1303) can be traced back to these texts and to the pronouncements of Popes Leo I (440-61), Gelasius I (492-96), and Nicholas I (858-67).(248)
Their view of papal power was influenced also by the fact that after the fall of the western Roman Empire no single secular government in the West was ever able to establish political control comparable to that once exercised by the Roman emperors. It was inevitable, therefore, that the popes should try to fill this vacuum, and that they should have aspired also to rule a secular kingdom. In point of fact, they realized their ambitions in this respect, and between the years 754 and 1870(249) ruled as temporal monarchs over papal lands of varying extent.
In 1871, however, after the capture of Rome from the pontifical forces in 1870, the Italian government put an end to the papal state, and sequestered all of its properties, granting the popes by the "Law of guarantees" nothing but an annual stipend (which they refused to accept), personal inviolability, and the usufruct of the Vatican, the Lateran, and Castel Gandolfo. The popes' right to use these three groups of palaces was declared inalienable, tax-exempt, and free from surveillance by the Italian authorities, and the papacy was permitted to exchange envoys, under the usual diplomatic immunities.
But, in 1929, by a Concordat and the Lateran agreements, Mussolini made the popes a gift in cash, and restored to them sovereign rights over many of their most cherished landmarks, including Vatican City, which now issues coins, prints postage stamps, exchanges diplomatic representatives with foreign powers, maintains a small army, and has taken its place among the nations of the world as a fully independent entity.
In a sense, therefore, the false Donation of Constantine has borne permanent fruit. Indeed, ever since the appearance of this document, the popes have been imitating(250) the Byzantine emperor in dress, attributes, and official ceremonial.
They vested themselves with the imperial purple, wore the red shoes traditionally associated with the Byzantine emperor, adorned their heads with crowns, and carried sceptres. Relying on the Donation as if it were not a forgery, they acted the role there assigned to them, and assumed the right to humble the mightiest potentates and dismiss them from their thrones. As a consequence, the pope was often described as a monarch, and it was said of him (ca. 1170, for example) that he was the true emperor and that the reigning monarch was nothing but his agent (ipse [papa] est verus imperator et imperator vicarius eius).(251)
Of course, though they often behaved very much as if they were the Byzantine emperors' imperial colleagues in the West, the popes did not deliberately dispute the sovereign rights of the Byzantine emperor in the East. Without realizing it, however, that was precisely what they were doing when they sought to subject the Church of Constantinople, which the Byzantine emperor by immemorial usage had always treated as his own domain, to papal jurisdiction. Being unacquainted with Byzantine political theory, the popes of the later Middle Ages never suspected how much the Byzantine emperors were sacrificing when they gave support to schemes leading to union.
One interesting example of the extent to which the popes took over imperial prerogatives relates to the convocation of oecumenical councils. This had been the exclusive function of the Byzantine emperors,(252) who convoked all seven of the oecumenical councils which are reckoned as such by both Rome and Constantinople. Their right to do so had been expressly recognized by the councils and the popes, as Nilus Cabasilas of Thessalonike (d. ca. 1363) pointed out in his polemic against the Roman doctrine of papal supremacy. In addition, the emperors always kept close watch over the proceedings of the oecumenical councils, and took care that all conciliar decisions should be pleasing to them.
As far as Byzantium was concerned, an oecumenical council was defined as one convoked by the emperor, which the five patriarchs attended personally or through their legates, and which set forth a decree concerning the dogma of the Church. As leading Roman Catholic authorities like F. Χ. Funk agree, papal approval was not essential, and the doctrinal rulings of the council were usually issued by the emperor as laws of the Empire long before the pope himself could express an opinion. Actually, no Roman pope was present at any of the seven oecumenical councils. But Rome sent delegates to all except the Second (the First of Constantinople, 381) and the Fifth (the Second of Constantinople, 553), the latter of which Pope Vigilius (see § 8 (c) above) refused to attend, although he was in Constantinople during its deliberations.
Beginning with Pope Nicholas Ι (858-67),(253) however, the popes claimed that they alone were authorized to summon oecumenical councils, and give effect to their decrees. Thereafter, the popes believed that no final decision could be given in any theological controversy that arose except with the consent of the Roman see.
The Byzantine Church never conceded this point. But the popes had such confidence in its validity that they number among the oecumenical councils not only the seven which are endorsed also by the Byzantine Church but twelve others as well (or thirteen, if the latter part of the Council of Constance  is included)(254) making a total of nineteen (or twenty). Greek delegates attended three of these additional councils (in 869-70, 1274, and 1438-39). But the first of them, which was held in Constantinople, and was directed against Photius by his enemies, was abrogated by that of 879-80; and the other two also were set aside, so far as Byzantium was concerned, by subsequent convocations.
The political implications of papal power, of which the Roman position on oecumenical councils is only one example, explain in part both such recognition
as the papal claims were accorded in the East and their ultimate repudiation. The
Byzantine emperor and his patriarch were prepared to go to great lengths in doing homage to Rome as the first capital of the Empire and as the see of Peter. But they were unwilling, except temporarily, and to a limited degree, during the abortive negotiations leading towards union, to grant Rome a primacy of jurisdiction that would diminish the autonomy of the Constantinopolitan Church or in any way compromise the absolutistic power of the Byzantine emperor. Here Rome and Byzantium collided, for the pope arrogated to himself not merely patriarchal prerogatives, which Constantinople accorded to each of the five patriarchs, but also the same kind of omnipotence in the entire Christian Church that the Byzantine emperor claimed in the Empire as a whole, in both Church and State.
Actually, as the Emperor Michael VIII had pointed out,(255) the proposed concessions to Rome on the part of Byzantium would have been more theoretical than real, and would not have led to any substantial restriction upon Byzantine sovereignty or freedom of action. But, even from the theoretical point of view, the proposals for union with Rome were so deeply offensive to national pride and popular sentiment about the Church that Byzantine public opinion, which proved to be more sensitive on this issue than the emperors themselves, would not condone even a purely nominal retreat.
Rome, on its part, was equally adamant. For the Roman pope of the Middle Ages was no less accustomed to command than the Byzantine emperor,(256) and no more disposed than the latter to submit to dictation. In view of such inflexibility on both sides, it is not surprising that Rome never succeeded in extending its dominion over the Byzantine Church. Nor is it very likely, despite all the changes which have taken place since the end of the Middle Ages, that the relative positions of the two Churches can be altered substantially in the near future.
But it will be unseemly, indeed, if they do not agree as Christians to exchange frequent tokens of mutual respect, which they both richly deserve, and to have done forever with the acrimony, hostility, and intolerance, of which neither has been guiltless. Union may, perhaps, be unrealisable; but harmony is possible and should be attained.
248. - In general, besides the works cited in note 1 above (n.b. Haller, Μann, and Seppelt), see Bihlmeyer-Tüchle, Kirchengeschichte, 2; CMH, 5-8; R. W. and Α. J. Carlyle, The history of mediaeval political thought in the West, 6 vols. (Edinburgh-London, 1950, reprint);and Fliche-Martin, Histoire de l'église, vols. 8 ff. More specifically, see Friedrich Kempf, "Die päpstliche Gewalt in der mittelalterlichen Welt: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Walter Ullmann," in Saggi storici intorno al papato (Miscallanea Historiae Pontificiae, 21 [Rome, 1959]), 117-69; Theodor Mayer, "Papsttum and Kaisertum im hohen Mittelalter: Werden, Wesen and Auflösung einer Weltordnung," HistZ, 187 (1959), 1-53; Ρaolo Brezzi, "Carattere ed estensione dell'autorità pontificia nel medio evo," Αnnali di storia del diritto, 2 (1958), 1-9; Werner Goez, Translatio imperrii: Εin Beitrag zur Geschichte des Geschichtsdenkens und der politischen Theorien im Mittelalter and in der frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen, 1958); Ε. Maschke, Der Kampf zwischen Kaisertum und Papsttum (Constance, 1958); Walther Holtzmann, Beiträge zur Reichs- und Papstgeschichte des hohen Mittelalters: Ausgewählte Aufsätze (Βonner historische Forschungen, 8 [Βonn, 1957]); idem, "Imperium und Nationen;" in Relazioni del Χ Congresso int. di sc. st., 3 (cited in note 1 above), 273-303; Marcel Ρacaut, La théocratie: L'éeglise et le pouvoir au moyen âge (Paris, 1957); Ρ Α. van den Baar, Die kirchliche Lehre der Translatio Ιmperiii Romani bis zur Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts (Analecta Gregoriana, 78, Series facultatis historiae ecclesiasticae, Β, 12 [Rome, 1956]); Η. Χ. Arquillière, L'Augustinisme politique: Essai sur les théories politiques au moyen âge (L'église et l'état au moyen age, 2d ed. [Ρaris, 1955]); Walter Ullmann, The growth of papal government in the Middle Ages (London, 1955); idem, Medieval papalism (London, 1949); Alois Dempf Sacrum Imperium: Geschichts- und Staatsphilosophie des Mittelalters und der politischen Renaissance, 2d ed. (Darntstadt, 1954); Robert Folz, L'idéee d'empire en occident du Ve au XIVe sièecle (Paris. 1953); idem, RH, 218 (1957), 32-63: review article on recent studies of the mediaeval papacy; Carl Erdmann, Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt des Frühmittelalters, ed. R Baethgen (Berlin, 1951); Giovanni Tabacco, La relazione fra i concetti di potere temporale e di potere spirituale nella tradizione cristiana fino al secolo XIV (Università di Τorino, Pubblicazioni della facoltà di lettere e filosofia, 2, 5 [Turin, 1950]); Κaarlo Jäntere, Die römische Weltreichsidee und die Entstehung der weltlichen Macht des Papstes (Αnnales Universitatis Turkuensis, Ser. Β, 21 [Turku, 1936]); G. Glez, "Pouvoir du page dans l'ordre temporel," DTC, 12, 2 (1935), 2670-750, 2772; L. Elliott-Binns, The history of the decline and fall of the medieval papacy (London, 1934); Alexander C. Flick, The decline of the medieval Church, 2 vols. (New York, 1930): from the end of the 13th c. to the end of the 15th. Of books and articles on special topics and the individual popes, Ι confine myself to a few of the more recent titles, which Ι have found interesting, and which may serve as samples of a vast and complicated literature: Ludwig Hödl, "Das scholastische Verständnis von Kirchenamt und Kirchengewalt unter dem frühen Einfluss der aristotelischen Philosophie (Per actus cognoscuntur potentiae)," Scholastik, 36 (1961), 1-22; idem, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Literatur und der Theologie der Schlüsselgewalt (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, Texte und Untersuchungen, 38, 4 [Münster Westf, 1959]),13th-14th cs.; Heinz Löwe, "Dante und das Kaisertum," ΗistΖ, 190 (1960); 517-52; Robert Ε. McNally, "The history of the medieval papacy: Α survey of research, 1954-1959," Theological Studies, 21 (1960), 92-132; G. Mollat, "Le Saint-Siège et la France sous le pontificat de Clément VI (1342-52)," RHE, 55 (1960), 5-24; Manuel Garcia-Pelayo, Εl reino de Dios, arquetipo politico (Madrid, 1959); D. Maffei, "Ι giuristi francesi e il 'Constitutum Constantini' al tempo di Filippo il Bello," Αnnali de Universita di Macerata, 23 (1959), 205-32; John Watt, "The development of the theory of the temporal authority of the papacy by the thirteenth-century canonists," in Historical studies: Papers read before the Third Confererece of Irish Historians, 2 (London, 1959), 17-28; idem, "The papal monarchy in the thought of St. Raymond of Penafort," Irish theological quarterly, 25 (1958), 33-42, 154-70 d. 1275; Ludwig Buisson, Potestas und caritas: Die päpstliche Gewalt im Spatmiittelalter (Forschungen zur kirchlichea Rechtsgeschichte und zum Kirchenrecht, 2 [Cologne-Graz, 1958]), on 12th c. ff.; Ι. Τ. Eschmann; "St. Thomas Aquinas on the two powers," MedSt, 20 (1958), 177-205: d. 1274; George de Lagarde, La naissance de l'esprit laique au déclin du moyen âge, 2 vols., 3d and 2d eds. (Louvain-Paris, 1956-58); F. Merzbacher, "Recht und Gewaltenlehre bei Hugo von St. Victor," ΖSavΚan, 75 (1958), 18l-208: d. 1141; Ρ. Partner, The papal state under Martin V (London, 1958): 1417-31; J. Τ. Ι. Gilchrist, The political ideas of Cardinal Humbert and the reform of the papacy (Leeds, 1957); Ernst Kantorowicz, The king's two bodies: Α study in mediaeval political theology (Princeton, 1957); reviewed by Friedrich Kempf, "Untersuchungen über das Einwirken der Theologie auf die Staatslehre des Mittelalters," RQ, 54 (1959), 203-33; Ernst Kantorowicz, "Mysteries of state: Αn absolutistic conception and its late mediaeval origins," HThR, 48 (1955), 65-92; idem, Kaiser Friedrich II, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1927), English trans., Frederick the Second 1194-1250, trans. Ε. Ο. Lorimer (New York, Ι957); idem, "Kaiser Friedrich II. und das Königsbild des Hellenismus," Varia variorum: Festgabe für Κ Reinhardt (Münster-Cologne, 1952), 169-93; Hans-Walter Klewitz, Reformpapsttum und Kardinalkolleg ... Studien über die Wiederherstellung der römischen Kirche in Süditalien ... (Darmstadt, 1957); Heinrich Schmidinger, "Das Papstbild in der Geschichtsschreibung des späteren Mittelalters," Römische historische Mitteilungen, 1 (1956-57), 106-29; Marcel Pacaut, Alexandre ΙII (1159-118Ι: Etude sur la conception du pouvoir pontifical dans sa pensée et dans sοn oeuvre (L'église et l'état au moyen âge, 11 [Paris, 1956]); Peter Ν. Riesenberg, Inalienability of sovereignty in medieval political thought (New York, 1956); Studi gregoriani, ed. G. Β. Borino, 1-5 (Rome, 1947-56); Alfred Hof, "Plenitudo potestatis und imitatio imperii zur Zeit Innocenz III.," ZKirch, 4. F. 4 = 66 (1954-55), 39-71: on 1198-1216; Brian Tierney, Foundations of the conciliar theory: The contribution of the mediaeval canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism (Cambridge studies in mediaeval life and thought, N.S. 4 [Cambridge, Eng., 1955]); Piero Zerbi, Papato, impero e "Respublica Christiana" dal 1187 al 1198 (Pubblicazioni dell'Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, N.S. 55 [Milan, 1955]); Marcel David, La souveraineté et les limites juridiques du pouvoir monarchique du IΧe au XVe siècle (Paris, 1954); Friedrich Kempf, Papsttum und Kaisertum bei Innocenz III (Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, 19 [Rome, 1954]): οn 1198-1216; essays by Α. Μ. Stickler, Μ. Maccanone, G. Ladner, Β. Llorca, W Ullmann, Α. Walz, J. Μ. Ροu y Marti, and Α. F Grau, Sacerdozio e regno da Gregorio VII a Bonifazio Vlll (Μiscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, 18 [Rome, 1954]); Αlfons Μ. Stickler, "Imperator vicarius papae: Die Lehren der französisch-deutschen Dekretistenschule des 12. und beginennden 13. Jahrhunderts über die Beziehungen zwischen Papst und Kaiser," Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 62 (1954), 165-212; Helene Tillmann, Papst Innοcenz III. (Bonner historische Forschungen, 3 [Bοnn, 1954]): 1198-1216. Οn Frederick II's conflict with the papacy, see the papers by R. Morghen, S. Μ. Οnοry, Α. Marongiu, Α. Fliche, and W Ullman in Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi Federiciani (Palermo, 1952), 9-81: 1194-1250; Augustin Fliche, La querelle des investitures (Paris, 1946); idem, La réforme grégorienne et la reconquëte chrétienne (1057-1123) (Fliche-Martin, Histoire de l'éeglise, 8 [Paris, 1940]); idem, La réforme grégorienne, 3 vols. (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, Etudes et documents, 6, 9, 16 [Louvain, 1924-37]): 1073-85, etc.; idem, Saint Grégoire VIl, 2d ed. (Paris, 1920); Ρan. J. Panagiotakos, Les rapports de l'église et de l'état à travers le mοnde (33-1939 p.C.), in Greek (Athens, 1939), 1-149; Α. Cartellieri, Der Aufstieg des Papsttums im Rahmen der Weltgeschichte (1047-1095) (Munich-Berlin, 1936); Georges Digard, Philippe le Βel et le Saint-Siège de 1285-1304, 2 vols. (Paris, 1936); Gerhart Ladner, Theologie und Politik vor dem Investiturstreit (Veröffentlichungen des Osterreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung [Vienna, 1936]); Karl-Hans Ganahl, Studien zur Geschichte des kirchlichen Verfassungsrechts im Χ und ΧI Jahrhundert (Innsbruck, 1935); Henri Χ. Arquillière, Saint Grégoire VII: Essai sur la conception du pouvoir pontifical (L'église et l'éetat au moyen âge, 4 [Paris, 1934]): 1073-85; Τ. S. R. Boase, Bοniface VIII (London, 1933); Ηelene Wieruszowski, Vom lmperium zum natiοnalen Königtum: Vergleichende Studien über die publizistischen Kämpfe Kaiser Friedrichs IΙ. und König Philipps des Schönen mit der Kurie (HistZ, Beiheft 30 [Munich-Berlin, 1933]); J. Ρ Whitney, Hildebrandine essays (Cambridge, Eng., 1932): 11th c.; Percy Ε. Schramm, Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio: Studien und Texte zur Geschichte des römischen Erneuerungsgedankens vom Εnde des karolingischen Reiches bis zum Investiturstreit, 2 vols. (Leipzig-Berlin, 1929); Jean Rivière, Le problème de l'église et de l'état au temps de Philippe le Bel (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, Etudes et documents, 8 [Louvain, 1926]): 1268-1314; Albert Hauck, Deutschland und die päpstliche Weltherrschaft (Zur Feier des Reformationsfestes und des Ubergangs des Rektorats auf Dr. Karl Lamprecht [Leipzig, 1910]); idem, Der Gedanke der päpstlichen Weltherrschaft bis auf Bonifaz Vlll (ibid. ... auf Dr. Georg Rietschel [Leipzig, 1904]).
249. - Α. C. Jemolo, Church and state in Italy 1850-1950, trans. David Moore (Oxford, 1960), an abridgment of idem, Chiesa e stato in Italia negli ultimi cento anni (Rome, 1948 ff.); G. Mollat, La question romaine de Pie VI à Ρie ΧΙ (Paris, 1932); idem, "Questione rοmana," Enciclopedia Cattolica, 10 (1953), 400-403; "Vaticano," ibid., 12 (1954), 1040-140, n.b. 1040-53 (by Pietro Α. d'Avack); S. W. Halperin, Italy and the vatican at war (Chicago, 1939): on 1870 ff., does not reach 20th c.; Byrnes MacDonald, The Ιtalo-νatican accord (Princeton, 1932); Τ'homas Ε. Moore, Peter's city: An account of ... the Roman question (London, 1929): all three of these books have appendices containing texts and translations of the principal documents.
250. - Eduard Eichmann, Die Kaiserkrönung im Abendland, 1 (Würzburg, 1942), 248f., 266 f. Cf. idem, Weihe und Κrönung des Papstes im Mittelalter (Münchener theologische Studien, 3, Kanonistische Abteilung, 1 [Munich, 1951]); Josef Deér, The dynastic porphyry tombs of the Norman period in Sicily (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 5 [Cambridge, Mass., 1959]), 162; Percy Ε. Schramm, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik, 3 vols., Schriften der MGH, 13, 1-3 (Stuttgart, 1954-56), passim, n.b. 1, 51--98; 3, 713-22, 1091 (for pp. 60 ff.).
251. - See texts quoted by Eichmann, Kaiserkrönung, and Deér, locc. citt. (in previous note); Mansi, Concilia, 15, 653Ε: "totiusque mundi imperatorem se facit" (of Pope Nicholas Ι).
252. - Cabasilas (PG, 149, 724C-725C), on whom see Giuseppe Schirò, "Il paradosso di Nilo Cabasila," in Silloge bizantina in onore di Silvio G. Mercati = SBN, 9 (1957), 362-88, with bibliography (e.g., Ε. Candal, op. cit. in note 245 above); Beck, Kirche, 727 f. See notes 55 (Mozzillo) and 113 above; Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 1, 1 (1907), 8-79. Cf. also Pierre-Τ. Camelot, Yves Congar, and Hamilcar Alivisatos in Β. Botte, Η. Marot, G. Fransen, Ρ de Vooght, J. Gill, Α. Dupront, R. Aubert, Le concile et les conciles (Chevetogne,1960), 45-123; Jean Gaudemet, L'église dans l'empire romain (IVe-Ve siècles) (Histoire du droit et des institutions de l'église en Occident, ed. Gabriel Le Bras, 3 [Paris, 1958]), 451 ff., n.b. 456 ff.; Attanasio Mozzillo, "Dei rapporti giuridici tra gli imperatori ed i concili ecumenici da Costantino a Giustiniano," Archivio giuridico "Filippo Serafini," 6. ser, 16 (1954), 105-28; Francis Dvornik, "Emperors, popes, and general councils," DOP, 6 (1951), 1-23; Heinrich Gelzer, "Die Konzilien als Reichsparlamente," Ausgewählte kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1907), 142-55 (from Deutsche Stimmen, 1900, no. 14); idem, "Das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche," ibid., 57-141 (from HistZ, 86, N.F 50 , 193 ff.); F Χ. Funk, "Die Berufung der ökumenischen Synoden des Altertums," in his Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, 1 (Paderborn, 1897), 39-86 (expanded version of HistJb, 1892, 689-723); idem, "Die päpstliche Bestätigung der acht ersten allgemeinen Synoden," ibid., 1, 87-121 (expanded version of HistJb, 1893, 485-516); idem, "Zur Frage nach der Berufung der allgemeinen Synoden des Altertums;" ibid., 3 (1907), 143-49 (revised version of ThQ, 1901, 268-77). Cf. Ν. Q. King, "The 150 holy fathers of the Council of Constantinople 381 A.D.," in Studia patristica, 1 (TU, 63 = 5 R. 8 [Berlin, 1957]), 635-41: Rome not represented except possibly by Ascholius of Thessalonike, who did not sign. Funk, a Roman Catholic, whose book was published under the imprimatur, maintains that papal ratification was not essential to establish oecumenicity of a council, but J. Forget, "Conciles," DTC, 3, 1, 641 f. holds that it was (wrongly, Ι believe).
253. - See texts and literature cited in notes 113 and 216 f. above; Nicholas, Εpp. 29, 66a, 70, 86, 88, 98, MGH Εpistι., 6, Karolini aevi, 4, 296.30 f., 380.3 f., 380 n. 1 (references to the Pseudo-Isidoran Decretals), 389.26 f., 450.12-14, 466.22 f., 473.12-14, 563.15-18. See Bihlmeyer-Tüchle, Kirchengeschichte, § 87, 3; Ε. Αmann, "Nicolas 1er (Saint)," DTC, 11, 1 (1931), 506-26. N.b. Anton Greinacher, Die Anschauungen des Papstes Nikolaus I über das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche (Ablandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte, 10 [Berlin-Leipzig, 1909]), 10 ff., 21 ff.; Hugo Laemmer, Papst Nikolaus der Erste und die byzantinische Staats-Kirche seiner Zeit (Berlin, 1857). These Roman propositions are summarized and refuted by Nilus Cabasilas in his treatise on the papal primacy, PG, 149, 701ΑΒ, 709CD, 713Β, 716Α, 724C-725C.
254. - Hefele-Leclercq, Conciles, 1, 1, 79-91.
255. - See § 22 (a).
256. - Cf. the well-known retort of the Emperor Anastasius Ι (491-518) to Pope Hormisdas (514-23) in 5Ι7: "Ι can tolerate insults and scorn, but Ι will not submit tο taking orders" (iniuriari enim et adnullari sustinere possumus, iuberi non possumus): Collectio Avellana, Εp. 138, 5, CSEL, 35, 2, 565.13 f.; quoted in Liber pontificalis, 54, ed. Duchesne, 1, 270.2 f.: Nos iubere volumus, non nobis iuberi. Actually the latter form of this famous imperial utterance is more in keeping with Byzantine political theory than the former. Ι cite it here as an illustratiοn οf the imperiousness which characterized both emperor and pope in the Middle Ages. For the latter, the classic statement is that of Pope Gregory VII in the Dictates papae (note 3 above).