What the Ecumenical Councils Said About Rome: Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon

When Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians argue about the pope, both soon reach for the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, which speak for the whole Church, East and West together. If the bishop of Rome held a God-given jurisdiction over every church, the councils that met in the presence of his own legates should show it.

The First Vatican Council (1870) said they do. Having defined that the Roman pontiff has "full power" to "tend, rule and govern the universal church," it added: "All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons."¹ This article tests that sentence against the texts, quoted from Henry Percival's standard translation in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, volume 14 (NPNF2 14).

In brief

The councils gave the bishop of Rome the first place among bishops, and the Orthodox Church gladly says so. They never grounded it in a divine commission to Peter's successor or gave Rome jurisdiction over the whole Church. Nicaea named Rome only as a parallel for the regional authority of Alexandria. A Latin version opening "The Roman Church hath always had the primacy" was read at Chalcedon by the papal legate, and the council's secretary answered it by reading the Greek canon, which has no such words. Constantinople ranked its bishop second "because Constantinople is New Rome"; Chalcedon said the Fathers gave old Rome its privileges "because it was the royal city," and passed canon 28 over the legates' protest; the East kept it despite Pope Leo's annulment. Sardica granted a limited, synodal right to order a retrial. And Chalcedon examined Leo's Tome before receiving it.

Thesis: The canons teach a primacy of honour for Rome within the conciliar life of the Church; the universal jurisdiction defined in 1870 is not in them, and the Orthodox Church is right to reject it.

What Rome claims

In its own words, Vatican I taught that "by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church," a power "both episcopal and immediate," to which clergy and faithful "are bound to submit." The sentence of the apostolic see "is not subject to revision by anyone," and "they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council."¹ Vatican II repeated that the pope "has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power."² The Catechism (882) teaches the same.³

Rome was plainly honoured early on, as Did the Early Church Believe in Papal Supremacy? shows. The question is whether the councils knew this kind of power.

Nicaea (325), canon 6: Rome as a parallel, not a head

"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges."⁴

The canon protects Alexandria's authority over its own region, with Rome as the example of a like regional authority; Antioch is confirmed in the same breath. The ground of all three is "ancient customs," not a word of Christ. The Catholic historian Karl Josef von Hefele, quoted in NPNF2 14, drew the plain conclusion: "It is evident that the Council has not in view here the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church, but simply his power as a patriarch."⁵ {{very-strong: Nicaea's canon 6 bases the authority of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch on ancient custom and treats Rome as a parallel case, not as a see with jurisdiction over the others.}}

The Latin version that added a sentence

Percival notes that the early Latin version called the Prisca makes the canon say the bishop of Rome "should have a primacy (principatum)," and that several manuscripts open with "The Church of Rome hath always had a primacy (primatum)."⁵ That form was read at Chalcedon. In the sixteenth session, when the legates objected to canon 28, Paschasinus read "Canon Six of the 318 holy fathers" as beginning: "The Roman Church hath always had the primacy."

The acts record what followed. "Constantine, the secretary, read from a book handed him by Aëtius, the archdeacon," the same canon from the Greek: "Let the ancient customs prevail, those of Egypt, so that the bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all, since this also is the custom at Rome."⁶ The Anglican scholar William Bright, quoted by Percival, judged that simply to confront the two texts "was to confute Paschasinus at once most respectfully and most expressively."⁶ The added sentence is a Western gloss, not the canon of Nicaea.

Constantinople (381), canon 3: honour, and the reason given

"The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome."⁷

The canon speaks of a "prerogative of honour," and it gives its reason: Constantinople is the new imperial capital. Hefele explains that "with the Greeks it was the rule for the ecclesiastical rank of a See to follow the civil rank of the city."⁷ Peter is not mentioned.

Rome resisted this canon, which demoted Alexandria and Antioch.⁷ Pope Leo dismissed the "written assent of certain bishops," given decades earlier, as "never brought to the knowledge of the Apostolic See by your predecessors," and defended Alexandria's "privilege of second place" and Antioch's right "to being third in dignity."⁸ Yet the order of 381 won. In 1215, while a Latin patriarch sat in Constantinople after the Crusaders took the city, the Fourth Lateran Council placed "the church of Constantinople" first after Rome,⁹ and Florence in 1439 put the patriarch of Constantinople "second after the most holy Roman pontiff."¹⁰ Rome came to accept the order its great pope had called a breach of Nicaea.

Sardica (343) and appeals: a privilege granted by a synod

The strongest canonical text for Rome is not from an Ecumenical Council. At Sardica, during the Arian crisis, most Eastern bishops withdrew and met separately at Philippopolis; Hefele judged that "The ecumenical character of this Synod certainly cannot be proved."¹¹ Its third canon proposes that when a bishop is condemned, "let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters."¹¹

Catholic writers rightly point to this canon: it names Rome and invokes Peter. But "if it seem good to your charity" is how a synod grants something new, not how it acknowledges a divine right. Percival's notes report the French historian Tillemont's judgment that the wording shows "a right which the Pope had not had hitherto."¹¹ The right is limited: Rome may order a retrial, held by bishops of the neighbouring provinces, with Roman legates if the pope sends them (canon 5). That is not the "supreme judge" of 1870.

The East later received Sardica's canons through the Council in Trullo (canon 2), and the Orthodox Church keeps them.¹² But they were a canonical arrangement. When Pope Zosimus (417-418) cited the Sardican rule to the African bishops as Nicene, they found nothing of the kind in authentic copies and asked Pope Celestine not to receive African clergy who fled to Rome or send his own to enforce his judgments, lest they introduce "the pride of secular dominion into the Church of Christ."¹³ Chalcedon's canon 9 sent a cleric or bishop in dispute with his metropolitan to "the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople."¹⁴ In 2016 the official Orthodox and Catholic dialogue commission agreed: "Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East."¹⁵

Chalcedon (451): "Peter has spoken thus through Leo" in context

Catholic writers often quote the bishops' cry after the Tome was read. In full:

"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing."¹⁶

Read whole, the cry praises the Tome because it agrees with the Fathers and with St Cyril of Alexandria; it does not say the Tome is true because Leo wrote it. Nor did the bishops stop there. The Illyrian bishops asked for explanations, and a delay was requested. In the fourth session each bishop was asked to "declare whether the epistle of most blessed archbishop Leo is in accordance with the exposition of the 318 fathers assembled at Nice." In Percival's summary, they answered one by one "until 161 separate opinions had been given."¹⁶

The French Catholic bishop Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, a Gallican quoted by Percival, studied those votes. Anatolius of Constantinople said the letter "agrees with the creed of our 318 Fathers at Nice" and with Cyril at Ephesus, and concluded, "I therefore agree to it, and willingly subscribe to it." Bossuet commented: "These are the words of one plainly deliberating, not blindly subscribing out of obedience."¹⁶ The council then wrote its own definition, which "while teaching the same doctrine was not the Tome of Leo," in Percival's words. {{very-strong: Chalcedon examined Leo's Tome against Nicaea, Constantinople and Cyril before accepting it, and wrote its own definition.}} That is the opposite of a papal sentence that "is not subject to revision by anyone." Papal Infallibility: Ancient Doctrine or Later Development? follows this question further.

Chalcedon, canon 28: "because it was the royal city"

Canon 28 is the clearest statement any Ecumenical Council made about why Rome was first:

"For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome."¹⁷

The council says who gave Rome its privileges, and why. It gives Constantinople equal privileges, ranked "next after" Rome, and jurisdiction over the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia and Thrace. {{very-strong: Canon 28 of Chalcedon says the Fathers granted Rome its privileges because it was the imperial city, and it gives Constantinople equal privileges in second place.}} The legates, absent when it passed, protested; the imperial judges kept "the primacy of all" for Old Rome but ruled that Constantinople "is to enjoy the honour of the same primacy," and the bishops cried, "This is a just sentence."⁶

The Roman case at its strongest

The council's letter to Leo calls him "set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter" and "charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour," and pleads: "we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting."¹⁸ At the third session the legates called Peter "the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church."¹⁶ Leo refused canon 28, and several old collections, including the Latin ones of Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore, end Chalcedon's canons at 27.¹⁷ On this view the council sought Rome's confirmation, Rome withheld it, and the canon has no force; the Catholic Encyclopedia says Leo ratified the acts "only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith."¹⁹

The answer from the record

The Orthodox Church venerates St Leo the Great. But courtesy is not a constitution: the letter says the canon was ratified "by the votes of the Synod," and when Leo refused, the council did not withdraw it. A legate's speech is not a canon, and the canons of the Ecumenical Councils never ground Rome's rank in Peter.

Leo's own letters show what was at stake. He told Emperor Marcian that "things secular stand on a different basis from things divine," and that Anatolius should "not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See."²⁰ He told the Empress Pulcheria, "by the blessed Apostle Peter's authority we absolutely dis-annul" the bishops' assents.²¹ Yet his main argument was Nicaea: the Nicene order was "truly ordained by the Holy Spirit," and "whatever is opposed to their authority is utterly destitute of all authority."⁸ He claimed to guard the conciliar order, not to stand above it.

And the annulment did not hold. Percival records that Leo admitted, about a year later, that the Illyrian bishops had subscribed the canon; that the part of his letter rejecting the canons "was left unread throughout the Greek empire"; and that Justinian's Novel 131 confirmed Constantinople's rank.²² {{strong: Canon 28 was kept in the East despite Leo's annulment and was renewed by Trullo, and Rome itself later accepted Constantinople's second place.}} A veto that the whole East could set aside for centuries was not the jurisdiction Vatican I describes.

Trullo (692), canon 36: the settled order

The Council in Trullo, which the Orthodox Church receives as completing the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, renewed both canons: "the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it," followed by Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.¹² Rome is first; Peter is not mentioned. The Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) then embraced "the divine canons" of "the Six Ecumenical Councils," which in the Orthodox reckoning includes Trullo.²³ How far Rome received Trullo is debated.

Objections, answered

"The councils always put Rome first. Isn't that primacy?"

Yes, and the Orthodox Church affirms it. The Chieti document of the joint commission speaks of "the see of Rome occupying the first place, exercising a primacy of honour (presbeia tes times)."¹⁵ The question is what kind. The canons say it came from the Fathers, from "ancient customs," and from the imperial city. A primacy given by councils for reasons they name is not a jurisdiction given by Christ. The same document records that in the West Rome's primacy "was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was successor of Peter," and that "This understanding was not adopted in the East."¹⁵

"Ninth-century Constantinople accepted Sardica's appeal rule."

True: the Chieti document notes that a council of 861 read Sardica as giving Rome a right of cassation.¹⁵ But a right granted by canon is a canonical right, exercised through a retrial by bishops. It is not "full, supreme and universal power" that the pope "is always free to exercise."

"Christ, not councils, made Peter the rock."

The Orthodox Church confesses Peter's real first place among the apostles, while the power to bind and loose was given to all of them (Matthew 18:18). But Vatican I claimed its doctrine was "to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons," and when the councils explained Rome's rank, they did not cite Matthew 16. The Eastern Patriarchs said so in 1848: the reason given was "not 'Feed my sheep,' not 'On this rock will I build my Church,' but simply old Custom, and the City being the Imperial City."²⁴ Christ's own rule points the same way: "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them ... But not so among you" (Luke 22:25-26).²⁵

The Orthodox position

The Orthodox Church keeps the canons: a primacy of honour within conciliarity, every bishop a successor of the apostles in his own church, and the gravest questions settled in council. Since communion with Rome was broken in the eleventh century, the first place has belonged to Constantinople, next in the canonical order. The Moscow Patriarchate's 2013 statement puts it plainly: universal primacy in the Orthodox Church is "the primacy of honour by its very nature, rather than that of power," and the canons behind the order of sees "do not vest the primus ... with any powers on the church-wide scale."²⁶ The 1848 Encyclical saw that primacy "transformed from a brotherly character and hierarchical privilege into a lordly superiority."²⁴

That is why papal supremacy, and the infallibility built on it, are errors and not a legitimate alternative: they turn an honour the councils gave into a power the councils never knew. Our Roman Catholic brethren err here as fellow Christians, and the remedy is a return to the common faith and canons. See Vatican I and Ultramontanism for how the later doctrine was defined, and How the Orthodox Church Knows Which Councils Are Ecumenical for how councils are received.

What we can say confidently

• Nicaea's canon 6 grounds the regional authority of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch in "ancient customs" and says nothing of a universal Roman jurisdiction; the Catholic historian Hefele agreed.
• The Latin opening "The Roman Church hath always had the primacy" is not in the Greek canon, and at Chalcedon the Greek was read immediately after it.
• Constantinople's canon 3 and Chalcedon's canon 28 explain rank by the standing of the cities, not by Peter.
• Chalcedon examined Leo's Tome, bishop by bishop, against Nicaea, Constantinople and Cyril before receiving it.
• Canon 28 passed over the legates' protest, was kept in the East after Leo's annulment and renewed by Trullo; Rome later accepted Constantinople's second rank (1215, 1439).
• Sardica gave Rome a limited, synodal right to order a retrial.

What remains disputed

• How far Rome's regional authority reached in 325 (the old debate over Rufinus's Latin rendering of canon 6).
• Whether Sardica's canons 3-5 create one stage of appeal or two; Percival reports both readings among canonists.
• Leo's motive in opposing canon 28: Quesnel said his own see's prerogatives, the Ballerini said fidelity to Nicaea.
• How primacy should work among the Orthodox churches today, a live discussion among them. That it is a primacy of honour, not universal jurisdiction, is not in dispute.

Conclusion

The councils honoured Rome. They gave her bishop the first place and acclaimed his Tome because it confessed the Fathers' faith. They also said why Rome was first: custom and the imperial city, not a divine monarchy. And they tested a pope's letter, overruled his legates, and kept a canon he tried to annul. Vatican I said its papacy was "in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons." The acts and canons describe something else.

They describe the Church the Orthodox still are: the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, governed by bishops in council, with a first among equals and no head but Christ. For the wider case, see Why Orthodoxy, and for the deposit the councils guarded, The Apostolic Faith Once for All Delivered and Guard the Good Deposit.

Notes

1. First Vatican Council, Pastor aeternus (1870), ch. 3, trans. in Norman Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (1990), https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm; Latin text at https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-pastor-aeternus-18-iulii-1870.html.
2. Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 22 (1964), https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.
3. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 882, https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM.
4. First Council of Nicaea, canon 6, trans. Henry R. Percival, NPNF2 vol. 14, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.vii.vi.viii.html.
5. Percival, "Excursus on the Extent of the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome Over the Suburbican Churches," NPNF2 vol. 14, quoting Hefele, History of the Councils, vol. 1, p. 397, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.vii.vi.ix.html.
6. Council of Chalcedon, Extracts from the Acts, Session XVI, NPNF2 vol. 14, with Percival's note quoting William Bright, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.xix.html. Session numbers follow the older Latin numbering used in NPNF; modern editions number some sessions differently.
7. First Council of Constantinople, canon 3, with Hefele's note, NPNF2 vol. 14, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html.
8. Leo the Great, Letter 106, to Anatolius, trans. Charles Lett Feltoe, NPNF2 vol. 12, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604106.htm.
9. Fourth Lateran Council (1215), constitution 5, in Tanner, https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm.
10. Council of Florence, Laetentur caeli (6 July 1439), in Tanner, https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum17.htm.
11. Synod of Sardica, canons 3-5 (Greek and Latin), with notes, NPNF2 vol. 14, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xv.iii.iv.iii.html (canon 3) and following pages; on its non-ecumenical status, Hefele, quoted in "Excursus as to Whether the Sardican Council Was Ecumenical," https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xv.iii.vi.html.
12. Council in Trullo (692), canons 2 and 36, NPNF2 vol. 14, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xiv.iii.ii.html and https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xiv.iii.xxxvii.html.
13. Code of Canons of the African Church (419), canon 28, and the Letter of the African synod to Pope Celestine (printed as "Canon CXXXVIII," trans. T. W. Allies), NPNF2 vol. 14, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.cxxxix.html; on the Apiarius affair and the copies from Cyril and Atticus, Percival's introduction to the Nicene canons quoting Hefele, NPNF2 vol. 14.
14. Council of Chalcedon, canon 9, NPNF2 vol. 14, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.xviii.ix.html.
15. Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium (Chieti, 21 September 2016), §§15-16, 19 and n. 15, https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese1.html.
16. Council of Chalcedon, Extracts from the Acts, Session II (continued), Session III and Session IV; Percival's General Introduction quoting Bossuet, Defensio Declarationis Cleri Gallicani, book 7, ch. 17 (trans. Allies); Percival's summary of Session V; all NPNF2 vol. 14: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.viii.html, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.ix.html, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.xi.html, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.ii.html, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.xii.html.
17. Council of Chalcedon, canon 28, NPNF2 vol. 14, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html.
18. Synod of Chalcedon to Leo (Leo, Letter 98), trans. Feltoe, NPNF2 vol. 12, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604098.htm.
19. Francis Schaefer, "Council of Chalcedon," The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 3 (1908), https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm.
20. Leo the Great, Letter 104, to Marcian (22 May 452), NPNF2 vol. 12, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604104.htm.
21. Leo the Great, Letter 105, to Pulcheria (22 May 452), NPNF2 vol. 12, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604105.htm.
22. Percival, "Excursus on the Later History of Canon XXVIII," NPNF2 vol. 14, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html.
23. Second Council of Nicaea (787), canon 1, NPNF2 vol. 14, https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xvi.xiv.i.html.
24. Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848), §13, https://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx.
25. Scripture is quoted from the New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), checked at https://www.biblegateway.com/.
26. Moscow Patriarchate, "Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church" (26 December 2013), https://mospat.ru/en/2013/12/26/news96344/.

Bibliography

Primary sources

• Percival, Henry R., trans. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. NPNF2 vol. 14. Ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York, 1900. Canons and acts of Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Chalcedon, Trullo, Nicaea II, Sardica and the African Code.
• Leo the Great. Letters 98, 104, 105, 106. Trans. Charles Lett Feltoe. NPNF2 vol. 12. 1895.
• The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982.

Orthodox and patristic sources

• Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848: A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns."
• Moscow Patriarchate. "Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church." 2013.

Other scholarship

• Hefele, Karl Josef von; William Bright; Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet: as quoted in Percival's notes, NPNF2 vol. 14.
• Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium. Chieti, 2016.

Sources from the tradition being discussed

• First Vatican Council. Pastor aeternus. 1870. Trans. Tanner.
• Second Vatican Council. Lumen Gentium. 1964.
• Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed.
• Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and Council of Florence (1439). Trans. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.
• Schaefer, Francis. "Council of Chalcedon." The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 3. 1908.