THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (381)
Ju stin T a y lo r
PA R T TW O
A fter reaffirm ing the faith o f N icaea, the council o f C onstantinople turned
to C hurch O rder. Its legislation in this m atter was based on th at o f Nicaea,
but it attem pted to bring ab o u t not so m uch a restoration o f w hat had been
decreed in 325, but rather a distinct developm ent o f the constitution o f the
eastern church.
Restoring O rder to the Church
Before N icaea, the church had very little in the way o f form ally enacted
law. T hat is not to say that the church at th at tim e enjoyed a state of
anarchy. She operated, in fact, with custom ary law .21 M any traditional
usages and institutions were in force, am ong the latter being episcopal
synods and the superior au th o rity o f certain sees. D uring the first q u arter o f
the 4th century, the ch u rch ’s custom ary law had been placed under stress
which it could not cope with, thanks to the turm oil o f the A rian crisis and
also to the unprecedented intervention o f the newly converted em peror in
the affairs o f the church.
T he council o f N icaea, therefore, took in hand a legislative program m e
the aim o f which was to clarify and define the traditional church order and
to prevent fu rth er o utbreaks o f turbulence. T he units o f church organiza­
tion were to be the provinces (corresponding in principle to the provinces o f
the R om an em pire). C anons 5 and 6 o f N icaea dealt with the provincial
synod (m eeting o f all the bishops o f the province) and w ith the powers of
the m etrop o litan bishop (bishop o f the capital city o f the province). Next, in
canon 6, by way o f exception to the norm al organization based on the p ro ­
vince, certain ‘ancient usages’ were expressly sanctioned. The bishop o f
A lexandria had ‘pow er’ over the w hole o f Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis
— his position there being com pared to th at o f the bishop o f Rom e in cen­
tral and southern Italy—and the churches o f A ntioch ‘and the other pro­
vinces’ were to keep their ‘prerogatives’, which the canon did not specify.
Finally, according to canon 7, the bishop o f Aelia (i.e. Jerusalem ) was to
receive the h o n o u r which was his by force o f custom and ancient tradition,
21. For cuslom in the church having the force o f law, see my article ‘Canon Law in the Age
o f the Fathers’, Australasian Catholic Record, liv (1977), p p .156 ff.; reprinted in J.F. Hite,
G .J. Sennaro, D .J. Ward (ed.). Readings, Cases, Materials in Canon Law, Collegeville
(M inn.), 1980, p p .39 ff.
92
JU STIN TAYLOR
but w ithout prejudice to the au th o rity o f the local m etropolitan, who was
the bishop o f C aesarea.22
The return o f the A rian troubles after N icaea and the alm ost continuous
intervention o f the em perors had once again brought the church in the east
to the point o f chaos. T he legislation o f N icaea proved unequal to the
strains placed upon it, though subsequent councils tried to am end and adapt
it. T he council o f 381 th erefore attem pted a large scale reform o f church
organization.
Events had show n th at it was necessary to have w orking institutions of
governm ent above the level o f the province. T he council o f C onstantinople
looked to the ‘dioceses’, the m ajo r divisions o f the em pire, each consisting
o f a num ber o f provinces. In 381 the eastern p art o f the em pire consisted of
five o f these dioceses: E gypt, ‘the O rien t’ (O riens) which took in Syria and
the surrounding provinces, P o n tu s in eastern Asia M inor, Asia in western
Asia M inor, and T hrace on the w estern side o f the B osphorus. As already
noted, the eastern h alf o f the diocese o f Illyricum had changed hands
several tim es betw een w estern and eastern em perors. It was eventually to
form a distinct diocese in the eastern p art o f the em pire.
A ccording to canon 2 o f C o nstantinople, the bishops o f each diocese
were to form a unity. Each diocese was to m anage its ow n affairs, and inter­
ference from outside was expressly forbidden. W ithin the diocese, the
various provinces were to be adm inistered by the provincial synods. Special
arrangem ents were allow ed for the new churches outside the em p ire.23
This is still far from giving the church a ‘patriarchal co n stitu tio n ’ such as
we find in the legislation o f the council o f C halcedon (451). F or one thing,
the term ‘p a tria rc h ’ had not yet settled into the m eaning which it was
ultim ately to receive. Then again, canon 2 o f C onstantinople did not
recognize or set up p atriarchs or prim ates for each o f the m ajor divisions of
the church. T he bishop o f A lexandria was already a patriarch in the strict
sense o f the w ord: according to canon 2, he ‘adm in istered’ Egypt. H owever,
the three dioceses o f P o n tu s, Asia and T hrace were simply to be ad m in ­
istered by their respective episcopal bodies. T here was no provision for or
m ention o f a p aram o u n t bishop in each o f these dioceses, even though in
fact the bishop o f E phesus had long enjoyed a trad itional prim acy in Asia,
and the bishop o f C aesarea in C appadocia had m ore recently acquired a
leading role in P o n tu s. Even in the diocese o f O riens, ‘the bishops of
O riens’ were to adm inister its affairs, saving always the ‘prerogatives’
accorded to the bishop o f A ntioch by the council o f Nicaea. Jerusalem was
not m entioned.
22.
23.
Text in Jonkers, A cta et Symbola, p.41 f.
Text in Jonkers, A cta et Symbola, p. 106 f.
T H E F IR S T C O U N C I I O F C O N S T A N T I N O P L E (381)
93
In fact, the church order set out in canon 2 o f C o nstantinople rem ained
only a paper co n stitution. It had a fatal w eakness, in that it did not set up
any organs o f governm ent by which the bishops o f each diocese could
adm inister its affairs. A vacuum rem ained. T he actual course o f develop­
ment was the em ergence o f other p atriarchates alongside th at o f A lexan­
dria. In the process the territorial unit o f the diocese was abandoned.
Shortly after 381, the bishop o f C o nstantinople began to acquire ju ris­
diction over his neighbours, the bishops o f T hrace, Asia and P ontus. These
three dioceses close to the G reat City were eventually recognized at
C halcedon as form ing the territory o f the p atriarch ate o f C onstantinople.
In the diocese o f O riens, the bishop o f A ntioch was recognized as patriarch,
though with som ew hat lesser powers than his b ro th er o f A lexandria. The
principle th a t each diocese was to form an au to n o m o u s unit was twice over­
ridden at the expense o f A ntioch. Between 381 and 451, the patriarch o f
A ntioch lost C yprus, which becam e an autocephalous church at the council
o f Ephesus, and also Palestine and A rabia, which becam e the patriarchate
o f Jerusalem at the council o f C halcedon. All these territories meanwhile
continued to belong to the civil diocese o f Oriens.
N ew Rom e
Having expressed the principle o f the au tonom y o f the episcopal body in
each diocese, the council o f C o nstantinople went on to state in canon 3:
‘H ow ever, the bishop o f C o nstantinople is to have the prerogatives o f
hon o u r after the bishop o f Rom e, because th at [city] is New R om e’.24
Previously in these pages I have taken the o p p o rtu n ity o f outlining the
course by which B yzantium , refounded as C onstantinople, becam e a new or
second R o m e.25 T he legislation o f 381 is an im p o rtan t stage in th at develop­
m ent. It shows the intention that C o nstantinople should be the equal (or
near-equal) o f Rom e not only in things political but in things ecclesiastical
as well. O th er steps taken ab o u t this tim e dem onstrate the sam e intention,
especially attem p ts to show C o nstantinople as an apostolic church: thus the
building o f the church o f the A postles; the tran slatio n to C onstantinople o f
the relics o f St T im othy in 356 and o f Sts A ndrew and Luke in 357; even­
tually the trad itio n th at the church o f B yzantium had been founded by St
Andrew , the elder b ro th er o f St P eter and the first A postle to be called by
Jesus.
In order to u n derstand it, canon 3 o f C onstan tin o ple needs to be read
closely and com pared with canons 6 and 7 o f N icaea. A t Nicaea, as seen
above, the ‘pow er’ (εξουσία) o f the bishop o f R om e in Italy provided a
24.
25.
Text in Jonkers, A d a el Symbola, p. 108.
‘The Founding o f New R om e’, Prudentia, vii (1975), pp. 111-116.
94
JUSTIN TAYLOR
precedent for the ‘po w er’ o f the bishop o f A lexandria in Egypt, Libya and
the Pentapolis, Now at C onstantinople, the ‘prerogatives o f h o n o u r’ (τα
πρεσβεία τής τιμής) o f the bishop o f R om e provided a precedent for those
which the bishop o f C on stan tin o p le was to enjoy seeing th a t his city was
New Rome.
W hat were these ‘prerogatives o f h o n o u r’ and how widely did they
extend? T he second question can be answ ered with greater certitude. The
‘prerogatives o f h o n o u r’ o f the bishop o f C o nstantinople were not to be
lim ited by the b o undaries o f the dioceses which constituted the adm in­
istrative units o f the church according to w hat had ju st been laid dow n in
canon 2. T h a t is p art o f the force o f the strong ‘how ever’ (μέντοι) which
introduces canon 3 and links it to the preceding canon. So the ‘prerogatives
o f h o n o u r’ o f the bishop o f C o nstantinople were to extend th ro u g h o u t the
eastern church, being lim ited only by those o f the superior prerogatives of
the bishop o f R om e (fo r C o nstantinople was still to rank ‘a fte r’ Rome).
But w hat were the ‘prerogatives o f h o n o u r’ which the bishop o f C o n stan ­
tinople was to enjoy after the bishop o f Rome? It seems th at in the intention
o f the council o f 381, they were not to be pow ers o f regular governm ent.
A gain, this appears from the ‘how ever’ which introduces canon 3 and refers
back to the preceding canon. T here it was stated th at the bishops o f each
diocese were to ‘ad m in ister’ (οίκονομειν) the affairs o f th at diocese. So the
‘prerogatives o f h o n o u r’ o f the bishop o f C onstantinople were to be
w ithout prejudice to the right o f the bishops o f each diocese to m anage their
own affairs w ithout interference from outside. H ere there is perhaps a
parallel w ith the ‘attendance o f h o n o u r’ (ή ακολουθία τής τιμής) which,
according to canon 7 o f N icaea, the bishop o f Jerusalem was to enjoy,
w ithout prejudice, how ever, to the rights o f the m etropolitan bishop of
Caesarea.
The phrase τά πρεσβεία τής τιμής, which I have rendered literally as ‘the
prerogatives o f h o n o u r’, is usually translated into English as ‘prim acy o f
h o n o u r’. It is thus taken to im ply a merely h o n o rary precedence with no
effective au th o rity . This m ay not do full justice to the intentions o f the
council. In current usage, let it be noted, τιμή could m ean an ‘office’ as well
as the h o n o u r attaching to th at office.
T he council certainly m eant to give w hat it felt to be due h o nour to the
bishop o f C onstantinople-N ew Rom e. The fathers may also have foreseen
some need to provide the eastern church as a whole with a chief bishop
holding an acknow ledged but undefined au th o rity to which there could be
recourse if the m achinery o f regular governm ent at the level o f province and
diocese b roke dow n. It is a fact th at in the years after 381, the bishop of
C onstantinople did intervene in the affairs o f eastern episcopal bodies. He
did so notably in T hrace, Asia and P o n tu s, the regions which came to be
T H E F IR S T C O U N C I L O F C O N S T A N T I N O P L E (381)
95
recognized as his patriarch ate. But not only there. M ore th an once, he inter­
vened in the affairs o f the p atriarch ate o f A n tio c h .26 In other w ords, the
bishop o f C on stan tin o p le after 381 seems to have exercised on occasions,
though not in a regular and continuous m anner, a suprem e au thority over
the eastern church in general, as well as a m ore regular jurisdiction in
Thrace, Asia and P o n tu s. I believe that canon 3 o f our council pointed the
way to this developm ent.
N ew R om e and O ld R om e
T he provisions o f canon 3 o f the council o f C on stan tinople changed w hat
was considered to be the settled order o f precedence am ong the great sees.
By a ttrib u tin g second place after Rom e to C onstantinople, the new canon
relegated A lexandria to third place and A ntioch to fo u rth . This was felt as a
hum iliation, especially in A lexandria (although T im othy o f A lexandria
signed the canons o f the council), and relations am ong the eastern p atriar­
chates were em b ittered .27
W as canon 3 also prejudicial to the interests o f Rom e? Leo the G reat
refused to accept it, ju st as he refused to accept the sim ilar ‘canon 28’ o f
C halced o n .28 T he council fathers m ay have anticipated th at their canon 3
would not be welcome in R om e— which m ay explain why the signature o f
the bishop o f T hessalonica is not to be found on the official list. In fact, a
m ood o f defiance tow ards R om e had show n itself in som e quarters at the
council over the question o f the succession to M eletius at A ntioch. F u rth er­
m ore, those bishops who sym pathized with G regory N azianzen had no
reason to feel particularly friendly tow ards P o p e D am asus. So, if the p ro ­
ceedings o f the council proved displeasing to Rom e, there were m any w ho
would not be sorry. O n the oth er h and, it w ould be going to o far to suggest
th at canon 3 was draw n up precisely in o rd er to offend the Pope.
The elevation o f C o nstantinople, and in p articu lar the argum ent on
which it was g ro u n d ed — ‘because th at is New R o m e’— have som etim es been
seen as an a ttem p t to hum iliate the elder Rom e by suggesting th a t her
ecclesiastical im portance was based solely or m ainly on her civil rank and
was already dim inishing with th a t. This m ight be a ju st in terpretation o f the
m ind o f those w ho drew up ‘canon 28’ o f C halcedon. It does not, however,
adequately represent the intentions o f those w ho fram ed this canon. For
See the docum ents listed in V. Grumel, Regestes des A cles du Patriarcal de Constan­
tinople, Constantinople, 1932-1947, nos. 87-90, 113-115.
26.
27. This was alm ost certainly a factor in the attack on John C hrysostom by Theophilus, and
perhaps also in the attacks on Nestorius and Flavian by Cyril and Dioscorus; see N .H . Baynes,
‘Alexandria and C onstantinople: A Study in Ecclesiastical D iplom acy’, in Byzantine Studies
and Other Essays, L ondon, I960, pp.97-115.
28. Ep. cvi.5; PL liv. 1005 f.
96
JU STIN TAYLOR
them the notion o f ‘New R om e’ was bigger than ‘civil capital o f the em pire’
and included the note o f apostolicity. It cannot be too m uch em phasized
th at the fathers o f 381 m eant to elevate C o nstantinople precisely by identi­
fyin g her with Rom e.
C anon 3 did not seek to dim inish the prestige o f Rom e in enhancing that
o f C onstantinople. Indeed it testified to the ‘prerogatives o f h o n o u r’ o f the
bishop o f Rome. F u rth er, it safeguarded his prim acy, by placing the bishop
o f C onstantinople after him — which, as the B yzantine canonical tradition
itself taught, did not indicate merely th at the see o f C onstantinople was
younger in tim e than th at o f Rom e, but expressed a certain ‘inferiority’.29
C anon 3 did not even forbid appeals to R om e from the east, and in fact
th ro u g h o u t the 5th century eastern churchm en did have recourse to Rom e in
various crises.
All the sam e, the popes would not have found acceptable w hat was really
the d rift, though not the declared intention, o f canon 3 o f C onstantinople.
This was to create in effect an eastern papacy. A n eastern papacy was in the
logic o f events. People had only quite recently learnt to think o f an ‘eastern
ch u rch ’. A nd even when they did think in such term s, they would not
necessarily have w anted it to be practically independent o f the west.
H ow ever, the m iddle decades o f the 4th century had witnessed precisely this
developm ent. It was then th at St Basil, M eletius and other eastern catholic
leaders appealed in vain fo r help from Rom e and the west in their dif­
ficulties with an A rian governm ent and schism in their own ranks, and
decided th at the eastern church m ust be able to look after itself and be fully
self su fficien t.30
A pope o f their own on the B osphorus, the co u n terp art and near-equal of
the pope on the T iber, a bishop o f New R om e in the fullest sense o f the
w ord. T hat m ay not have been the intention, clearly seen and fully willed,
o f the fathers at C onstan tin o p le in 381, but th a t in m any ways is w hat they
got. It could, no d o u b t, be argued th at an ‘eastern p apacy’ was in the best
interests o f the eastern church herself. H ow ever, it set a problem for Rom e
and for the church as a w hole. A t any rate, it m ade visible and perm anent
the division o f the church betw een east and west.
Prom ulgation
The council had nothing to say ab o u t w hat was the chief aggravating fac­
to r in the A rian troubles, viz. im perial intervention in the affairs o f the
church. In fact, it gave the em peror the last w ord in its own proceedings.
29. Thus Zonaras (c. 1190); PG cxxxvii. 324 f.
30. See my article ‘East and West in the Church: In the Beginning’, Prudentia, viii (1976),
pp.91-98.
THE· [ IRS T C O U N C I L OF C O N S T A N T I N O P L E (381)
97
In their concluding ad dress31 the bishops thanked G od for having m ade
Theodosius em peror in order to bring about the peace o f the churches and
defend the sound faith. It was necessary to inform the em peror o f w hat the
holy synod had done. They had assem bled at C o nstantinople at his invita­
tion, confirm ed agreem ent am ong them selves, confessed the true faith o f
the fathers o f N icaea and anathem atized the opposing errors. Finally, for
the good order o f the churches, they had passed canons which they
presented to the em peror, begging him to confirm the sentence o f the coun­
cil. T he address concluded with prayers for peace and for a long reign for
T heodosius.
The em peror confirm ed the w ork o f the council by his constitution
Episcopis T radi o f 30 July, 381.32 Theodosius ordered th at the churches
th ro u g h o u t his dom ains were to be handed over to the bishops who held the
orthodox faith in the T rinity and w ho were in com m union with certain
nam ed bishops: N ectarius o f C onstantinople; T im othy o f A lexandria;
Pelagius o f L aodicea and D iodore o f T arsus (in the diocese o f Oriens);
A m philochius o f Iconium and O ptim us o f A ntioch in Pisidia (in the diocese
o f Asia); H elladius o f C aesarea in C appadocia, O treius o f M elitene and
G regory o f Nyssa (in the diocese o f Pontus); T erennius o f Scythia and M arm arius o f M arcianopolis (both in rem ote frontier provinces o f the diocese
o f Thrace).
In this docum ent, the organization envisaged for the eastern churches by
canons 2 and 3 o f C o nstantinople is put into effect: the bishops are grouped
into dioceses, and C o nstantinople is given precedence. It will be
rem em bered th at A ntioch in Syria was at th at tim e w ithout a bishop, and
that the bishop o f Ephesus was u n o rth o d o x on the doctrine o f the H oly
Spirit. H ence, in the dioceses o f O riens and A sia, the bishops nam ed were
not those o f the leading sees, but others know n for their orthodoxy if not
for the im portance o f their cities. It is significant th at the bishop o f
H eraclea, the leading see o f T hrace before the rise o f C onstantinople, is not
m entioned. F rom the outset, it would seem, the bishop o f C onstantinople
was, in effect, the prim ate o f T hrace, to which he w ould proceed to add
Asia and P o n tu s as well.
This year we are really celebrating the sixteenth centenary o f the
Ecum enical P atriarch ate o f C onstantinople.
31.
32.
Mansi, A m pl. Coll., iii. 557.
Codex Theodosianus, xvi. 1. 3; ed. T. M om m sen, Berlin, 1905, vol. I. p .834.