How Churches Understood the Reception of the Ecumenical Councils

How Churches Expressed their Communion in the First Five Centuries

Whether Rome was Given any Special Role
From the Perspective of the Coptic Orthodox Church
By Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette
Coptic Orthodox Church

 “But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, You know that those who are
considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise
authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become
great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first
shall be slave of all” (Mar 10:42-44).
 “And when He was in the house He asked them, What was it you disputed among
yourselves on the road? But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among
themselves who would be the greatest. And He sat down, called the twelve, and
said to them, "If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all "
(Mar 9:33-35).

The disciples listened to their Lord, surrendered to His commandment, and applied it all
their lifetime.
Our Lord Jesus Christ never gave priority to one of the disciples over the other.
Our Lord Jesus Christ never gave His teachings to one of His disciples privately, never took
one solely to any commission leaving the others behind, never gave any gifts to one of them
and not give all the others equally.
The only special gift He gave was St. Mary whom He has given as a mother to His beloved
disciple John who was the only disciple who followed Him till the cross.
Even when he sent them to serve he sent them two by two (see Mar 6:7, Lk 10:1).

1
He chose three for special incidents and declarations but never one. In the incident of the
transfiguration he took Peter, James and John (see Mat 17, Mar 9, Lk 9). He took the same
three with him while raising the daughter of Jairus, ruler of the synagogue, from death (see
Mar 5). He declared His death and the signs of the end of the world to the same three (see
Mat 14:33, Mar 13).
All of this was because He wanted to teach them that the church is not a monarchy as the
empire, but rule and decisions in the church should be of the community.

The Church of the Apostles:

The church of the Apostles exercised the same regime handed down from the Lord Himself.
No one of the apostles claimed primacy over the others, took decisions without the others,
or gave orders to the others.
St. Paul said: “And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I
preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means
I might run, or had run, in vain” (Gal 2:2). He added, “When James, Cephas, and John, who
seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and
Barnabas the right hand of fellowship” (Gal 2:9).
“By revelation” he was directed to go up to “those who were of reputation” or “who seemed
to be pillars” and not to one special leader or supreme disciple although each one of them
was a pillar.
Furthermore, in spite of the fact that St. Paul has received from the Lord that which he
delivered to others (see 1Co 11:23), he was directed by revelation to go up to the disciples
lest by any means he might run in vain.
Now, St. Paul, the recent disciple who was not even one of the twelve, withstood St. Peter to
his face, and even reprimanded him before everyone. He said: “Now when Peter had come to
Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed” (Gal 2:11). And St. Peter
accepted… Moreover, in humbleness he witnessed to the writings of St. Paul directing
everyone to them and declaring that they are considered Scripture. He wrote in his second
2
epistle, “Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in
peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is
salvation-- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written
to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things
hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as
they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2Pe 3:14-16).

The Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem:

The same St. Paul when faced by the question of circumcision went up to Jerusalem to the
apostles and elders and never decided on his own, or, refer to one disciple. It is written in
the book of Acts: “And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, Unless
you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Therefore, when
Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul
and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders,
about this question” (Act 15:1-2). Thus the council of the apostles convened since they also
had some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed in Christ but insisted that it is necessary
to circumcise the gentiles.
“Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter” (Act 15:6). During their
gathering St. Paul and St. Barnabas explained how many miracles and wonders God had
worked through them among the Gentiles (see Act 15:12). Then St. Peter tried to convince
them by declaring that God, who knows the heart, acknowledged the gentiles by giving them
the Holy Spirit, just as He did to the Jews (see Act 15:8) so why do they test God by putting a
yoke on the neck of the disciples (Act 15:10).
After everyone became silent. St. James referred to what St. Simon (Peter) said and tried to
give more evidences to convince everyone, then said: “Therefore I judge that we should not
trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Act 15:19 ). Consequently, the
apostles decided and wrote to the gentiles: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us,
to lay upon you no greater burden…” (Act 15:28). Here we find that although James acted as

3
head of the council, being the bishop of Jerusalem, saying “I judge”, yet the decision or
judgment was not his alone as it is obviously clear.

This is how the church of the apostles acted: in full humbleness, true love, mutual
respect, convincing means, being guided by the Holy Spirit. The most important point
that should be highlighted here is that no one took any decision on his own or gave
others mere orders. This is the church as established by our Lord and lived by His
apostles and handed down to us.

Understanding this concept the Coptic Orthodox Church believe that there is no
primacy, or ultimate rule or decision of a certain pope or bishop but believes, locally,
in the decisions of its holy synod, and universally, in the decisions of the holy councils
attended, or subscribed to by the apostolic sees and churches.

‘Church’ for St. Ignatius (c. 35-107):

St. Ignatius, who is one of the greatest apostolic fathers, excellently expressed the concept of
the Church as exercised and handed down by Jesus Christ and His apostles. What he wrote
regarding the local church applies to the entire universal church.

In his Epistle to the Smyrneans he wrote:

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as
ye would the apostles, and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no
man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a
proper Eucharist, which is (administered) either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has
entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude (of the people)
also be: even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church..”1

In his Epistle to the Trallians he wrote:

1
Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, American reprint of the Edinburgh Edition, Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids,
Michigan 1979, p. 89.
4
 “In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the
bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of
God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is not Church.”2
In his Epistle to the Magnesians he wrote:
“I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in
the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with
your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus
Christ.”3
In the same epistle to the Trallians he wrote:
“For, since ye are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not after
the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ… It is therefore necessary that, as ye
indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the
presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope in whom if we live, we shall [at
last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of
Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat
and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds
of accusation [against them] as they would do fire.” 4

Thus, St. Ignatius wanted to teach his children that the bishop, the priests, the
deacons and the congregation, or “the multitude of people” as he calls them,
constitute the church and without all of them it is not considered a church.

The Early Church of the First Three Centuries:

The fathers of the early church acted in the same manner of the apostles. In spite of the slow
and primitive means of communication that kept the churches roughly remote; and in spite

2
Ibid., p. 67.
3
Ibid., p. 61.
4
Ibid., 66-67.
5
of the severe persecution that led to martyrdom of thousands of saints East and West, yet,
our fathers believed in this ‘oneness’ of the church.

Following are examples of the writings of some of some early fathers from different
provinces but having the same faith and views as handed down from the apostles.

Regarding the concept of the oneness of the church St. Ignatius wrote:
“He therefore, who does not assemble with the church, has even by this displayed his
pride, and he has condemned himself.”5

Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215) wrote:

“The pre-eminence of the church is its oneness. It is the basis of union. In this, it
surpasses all other things and has nothing like or equal to itself.”6

Explaining how the church exercised this unique oneness during the first centuries St.
Irenaeus of Lyons (c.135-200) wrote:
“Although dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, the
church has received this faith from the apostles and their disciples… the church received
this preaching and this faith, although she is scattered throughout the whole world, yet,
she carefully preserves it, as if she occupied only one house. She also believes these
points just as if she had only one soul, and one and the same heart, she proclaims
these things, teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony as if she
possessed only one mouth. For although the languages of the world are different, yet
the significance of the tradition is one and the same. For the churches which have
been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different. Neither do,
those in Spain, Gaul, the East, Egypt, Libya or in the central regions of the world.”7
He wrote:
“To this cause also are due the various opinions that exist among the heretics, inasmuch
as each one adopted errors just as he was capable. But the church throughout all the

5
Ibid., p. 51.
6
Ibid., Vol. II, p. 555.
7
Ibid., Vol. I, p. 330-331.
6
 world, having its origin firm from the apostles, preservers in one and the same
opinion with regard to God and His Son.”8
He also wrote:
“The illustrious church is everywhere. The winepress is dug everywhere. For those who
receive the Spirit are everywhere.”9
Again he wrote:
“But the path of those belonging to the church encircles the whole world, as possessing
the sure tradition from the apostles. It enables us to see that the faith of all is one and
the same. For all receive one and the same God the Father, all believe in the same
dispensation regarding the incarnation of the Son of God, all are cognizant of the same
gift of the Spirit and are familiar with the same commandments, all preserve the same
form of ecclesiastical constitution and expect the same advent of the lord, all await the
same salvation of the complete man, that is the soul and body, and undoubtedly the
preaching of the church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of
salvation as shown throughout the whole world. For the light of God is entrusted to
her.”10
The Apostolic Constitutions states:
“The catholic church is the plantation of God; it is His beloved vineyard, it contains those
who have believed in His unerring divine religion. These are the ones who are the heirs
by faith of His everlasting kingdom and who are partakers of His divine influence and of
the communication of the Holy Spirit. These are the ones who are armed through Jesus
and have received his fear into their hearts. They enjoy the benefit of the sprinkling of
the precious and innocent blood of Christ. They have free liberty to call Almighty God,
“Father”. They are fellow-heirs and joint-partakers of his beloved Son.”11

How the Early Church Everywhere Faced Heresies and Heretics:

8
Ibid., p. 433.
9
Ibid., p. 515.
10
Ibid., p. 548.
11
Ibid., Vol. VII, p. 391.
7
All the church represented in its fathers stood steadfast against heresies and heretics
refuting them and putting an end to their heresies. Every local church preserved and
defended the faith from its side till all the heresies of the first centuries were
ultimately refuted and annulled without having a leader or even convening in a
general council.
Following are few examples of responses done by early fathers of different provinces
against heretics during the first three centuries:

St. Cyprian of Carthage (c.200-258) wrote:

“Although there seem to be tares in the church, yet neither our faith nor our charity
should be hindered, because we see that there are tares in the church, we ourselves
should not withdraw from the church. Rather, we only should labor that we may be
wheat. In that manner, when the wheat begins to be gathered into the Lord’s barns, we
may receive fruit for our labor.”12

Against Novatiantists he wrote:

“Neither let the new heretics [i.e. the Novatianists] flatter themselves in this, that they
say that they do not communicate with idolater… They say that one is polluted by
another’s sin… However, with us, according to our faith and the given rule of divine
preaching, the principle of truth agrees that everyone is personally held fast in his own
sin. Nor can somebody become guilty for another. For the Lord forewarns us, saying,
“The righteousness of the righteousness will be upon him and the wickedness of the
wicked will be upon him.” And again, “The fathers will not die for the children, and the
children will not die for the fathers. Everyone will die for his own sin.”13

Against Gnostics St. Ignatius wrote:

“The unbelieving say that He only seemed to suffer.” 14

Again he wrote:
12
Ibid., Vol. V, p. 327.
13
Ibid., p. 334.
14
Ibid., Vol. I, p. 70.
8
 “[The Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess
the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ… those, therefore, who speak
against this gift of God, incur death.”15

Against Gnostics Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) writes:

“You may have fallen in with some [Gnostics] who are called Christians, but who do not
admit this, for they venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham… and say there is not
resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven, do not
imagine that they are Christians.”16
St. Irenaeus writes:
“They bring forward an endless number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which
they themselves have forged. They use them to bewilder the minds of foolish men and
those who are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth.” 17

Again he wrote under ‘Doctrines of Cainites’:

“Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and
acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to
themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one
of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in habit of carrying off that which belonged
to her from them to herself, they declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly
acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did,
accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly,
were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which
they style the Gospel of Judas.”18

He wrote:
“The Ebionites, who use only Matthew’s Gospel, are refuted out of this very same work,
making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating the Gospel
according to Luke, is still proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God from those
15
Ibid., p. 89.
16
Ibid., p. 239.
17
Ibid., p. 334.
18
Ibid., Vol. I, p. 358.
9
 passages which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging
that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, prefer the Gospel by
Mark. However, if they read it with a love of truth, they would have their errors rectified.
Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, make copious use of the Gospel according to
John to illustrate their conjunctions. However, they, too, will be proved to be totally in
error.”19
St. Irenaeus also wrote:
“Valantinus adapted the principles of the heresy known as “Gnostic” to the distinctive
character of his own school.”20
Clement of Alexandria wrote:
“I wonder how some dare to call themselves “perfect” and “Gnostics”. They are inflated
and boastful, viewing themselves above the apostle. For Paul himself acknowledged
about himself “Not that I have already attained or am already perfect” (phil 3:12).” 21
Against Docetists Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-236) wrote:
“The Docetists say the son assumed thirty forms from the thirty Aeons. And for this
reason, that eternal One existed for thirty years on the earth.”22
On how the fathers view the heretics St. Irenaeus wrote:
“Marcion met Polycarp on one occasion, and he said, “do you know me?” Polycarp
replied, “I do know you, the first-born of Satan!” such was the horror that the apostles
and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters
of the truth. As Paul also says, “reject a man who is a heretic, after the first and second,
knowing that he who is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself.” 23

Early Church Councils and Primacy:

19
Ibid., p. 428.
20
Ibid., p. 332.
21
Ibid., Vol. II, p. 222.
22
Ibid., Vol. V, p. 120.
23
Ibid., Vol. I, p. 416.
10
On the early history of church councils the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity states
that:
“The first church councils were held in Asia Minor in the latter half of the second
century to consider what to do about Montanism (Eusebius. H.E. 5.16.10; cf.
Tertullian Jej. 13, for councils in Greece)… Several councils of bishops were held a
few years later in response to Victor of Rome’s appeal to determine the practice of the
churches in regard to the celebration of the Pasch (Eusebius, H.E. 5.23.2-4). Bishops
of the province met annually under the presidency of the bishop of the chief city with
some regularity in the mid-third century, particularly in North Africa, as is known
from Cyprian of Carthage (ep. 55:67.1). We have the Judgment of 87 Bishops from one
of these councils.
The first council of bishops from a significantly wider geographical area occurred at
Arles in 314. It was called by Constantine to deal with questions posed by Donatist
schism in North Africa. Most of the western part of the empire, the territory then
ruled by Constantine, was represented. This gathering provided precedent to the
First Ecumenical Council, held in Nicaea in 325 to discuss the teachings of Arius.
Although mostly eastern bishops were present at Nicaea, there were a few western
representatives, giving the council a sense of truly representing the whole church.
The organization of the early church had provided no machinery for settling disputes
broader than those within a local church; councils became the way of dealing with
larger issues, by the fourth century it was common to speak of the council as
convened in the Holy Spirit. Although other clergy or even laymen could participate
in various ways, decisions were made by the bishops.” 24

Regarding the disputation on the leadership of the Church of Rome and primacy of its
Pope, Henry Chadwick, Professor of Divinity at Oxford and Cambridge Universities writes: 25

“But before the third century there was no call for a sustained, theoretical
justification of this leadership. All were brethren, but the church in Rome was
24
Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, second edition, Garland Publishing, inc, New York & London 1998, P. 296.
25
Michael Whelton, Pope’s and Patriarchs, Conciliar Press, California, 2006, p. 115.
11
 accepted as first among equals. The ‘Petrine text’ of Matthew 16:18, “Thou art Peter
and upon this rock I will build my Church”, cannot be seen to have played any part in
the story of Roman leadership and authority before the middle of the third century
when the passionate disagreement between Cyprian of Carthage and Stephen of
Rome about baptism apparently led Stephen to invoke the text as part of his defense
against Cyprian. But it was not until Damasus in 382 that this Petrine text seriously
began to become important as providing a theological and scriptural foundation on
which claims to Primacy were based… From Damasus onwards there is a marked
crescendo in the expression of the claims made by the bishops of Rome.” 26

Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons, that date from the first half of the fourth century,
mirrors the practices of the pre-Nicene Church, it reads as follows:
“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and
account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but
each may do those things which concern his own parish and the country places which
belong to it. But neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of
all. For so there will be oneness of mind and God will be glorified through the Lord in
the Holy Spirit.”27

This is the Coptic Orthodox perception and practice throughout the ages. In our
Coptic Orthodox Church no one takes a decision without the consent of the Pope of
Alexandria and all the decisions are finally through the consent of the members of
Holy Synod.

W.H.C. Frend, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Glasgow University, writes:

“In both East and West the decision of a council rather than the fiat of the Pope was
the supreme instance of Church government… in the East they were confronted by a
theory of church government which had a place for Episcopal authority, but none for
Roman Primacy.”28
26
Chadwick, The Early Church, P. 237.
27
John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974, p. 80.
28
W.H.C. Frend, The Early Church, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987, p. 223.
12
Regarding the role of the Pope of Rome in convening the ecumenical councils, the
authors of the publication of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers denies this fact offering the
following information:
“The Seven Ecumenical Councils were all called together at the commandment and will
of the Princes; without any knowledge of the matter on the part of the Pope in one case
at least (1st Constantinople); without any consultation with him in the case of [Link], so
far as we know; and contrary to his expressed desire in at least the case of Chalcedon,
when he only gave a reluctant consent after the Emperor Marcian had already
convoked the synod. From this it is historically evident that ecumenical Councils can
be summoned without the knowledge or consent of the See of Rome.”29

The Council of Nicaea 325 AD

It was not till the fourth century that the first ecumenical council convened in Nicaea. The
council was summoned by Emperor Constantine at the request of the Church of Alexandria
to confront the Arian heresy.
In this council the major sees of the eastern empire were well represented… Sylvester of
Rome, having asked to be excused on the score of old age and infirmity, did not attend and

thus two papal legates who were priests attended.30

One of the western bishops, Hosius of Cordova, presided over the council, probably because
he was a confidant and respected friend of the emperor.31
St. Athanasius (c.296-373) was at that time a young deacon who came to Nicaea to attend
the council with his Pope, Alexander of Alexandria. In spite of being only a young deacon,
Athanasius was the real champion of the council of Nicaea and the formulator of the creed of
faith.

29
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. XIV, p. xii.
30
Cf. Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 58.
31
J.D. Douglas, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Zondervan, Michigan 1974, p.706.
13
At that time, no one cared who presides over the council but everyone cared for the faith
and how to fight the present dangerous Arian heresy.
Here again, we find the same biblical apostolic spirit that was exercised since the time of the
apostles.
Furthermore, Canon 6 of that council proves that the sees at that time were equal and there
was no primacy of any see over the other. Canon 6 states the following:
“The old customs in use in Egypt, in Libya, and in Pentapolis, shall continue to exist, that
is, that the bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these (provinces); for
there is a similar relation for the bishop of Rome. The rights which they formerly
possessed must also be preserved to the Churches of Antioch and to the other eparchies
(provinces).”32

St. Basil (c.330-379) and the Arian Heresy

It should be stated at the outset that the Arian heresy was a great heresy that almost
overwhelmed the Church and was fought and conquered without Rome’s involvement. In
his lifelong battle with the Arians, St. Basil never displayed any awareness that in the
bishop of Rome there resided a supreme authority for settling doctrinal disputes. It is
rather to St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (c.296-373), that he looks for
leadership, guidance, consolation, and healing of the spiritual sickness in the Church .
St. Basil says of St. Athanasius:33

Who has more capacity than yourself, with your intelligence and prudence? Who is
keener to see the needful courses to be taken? Who has more practical experience in
working a profitable policy? Who feels more deeply the troubles of the brethren?
What through all the West is more honoured than your venerable gray hairs? 34

32
Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, Vol. I, T.&T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1894, p. 388, 389.
33
Michael Whelton, Pope’s and Patriarchs, Conciliar Press, California, 2006, p. 122-123.
34
St. Basil, Letter LXVI, Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. VIII.
14
 The worse the diseases of the churches grow, the more do we all turn to your
excellency, in the belief that your championship is the one consolation left to
us in our troubles.35
…that is could not make a more fitting beginning than by having recourse to your
excellency, as to the head and chief of all.36
[I] direct my gaze in the direction of your reverence; I remember that our Lord has
appointed you to be physician of the diseases in the Churches; and I recover my
spirit.37
The abovementioned extracts from the letters of St. Basil prove that St. Athanasius was the
main personality at that time. He was putting his life defending the faith and the church
against the Arian Heresy. In spite of the fact, he did not claim supremacy over the church.
Even, when he preached in Europe during his exile, he did not consider those who believed
in Christ due to his teaching as his own flock.

The Council of Constantinople 381 AD

Summoned by Emperor Theodosius I, it was attended by bishops from the civil dioceses of
Oriens, Asia, Pontus, and Thrace at first, and later by Pope Timothy of Alexandria and
Ascholius of Thessalonica.
It was presided over by Meletius bishop of Antioch, when he died St. Gregory of Nazianzen
was supposed to preside but he retired. Nectarius a government official was appointed to
Constantinople and was asked to preside.
Canon 2 of this council forbids bishops functioning outside the civil diocese of their
see, although founding churches may still regulate mission churches among barbarians. The
controversial third canon gives Constantinople primacy of honor next to Rome ‘because
Constantinople is new Rome’. Alexandria resented this relegation, and Rome rejected
political prominence as a ground of her ecclesiastical supremacy. 38

35
St. Basil, Letter LXXX.
36
St. Basil, Letter LXIX.
37
St. Basil Letter LXXXII.
38
Cf. J.D. Douglas, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Zondervan, Michigan 1974, p. 256.
15
This all proves that the concept of primacy did not exist in the early church. What is
mentioned in canon 3 is only a primacy of honor for political reasons.

Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria

One of the greatest examples of the aforementioned apostolic spirit that survived in the
church till the fifth century is the letter of Celestine Pope of Rome to Cyril Pope of
Alexandria before the Council of Ephesus 431 AD. For its importance I shall put the whole
letter and attach its Greek and Latin texts:

“Celestine, to his beloved brother, Cyril39

1-To us in our sadness the documents sent through our son Posidonius, the deacon,
from your holiness brought joy and we exchanged our sorrow for happiness. As we
looked at and reflected upon what the one who is attempting to disturb the church in
Constantinople with his distorted homilies said, our soul was overwhelmed with no
little sorrow. We were tormented by the goadings of various doubts, pondering the
way to aid the preservation of the faith. But as we turned our attention to the
writings of your fraternity, immediately there appeared to us a most ready cure
through which the pestilential disease may be completely driven out by a
wholesome remedy. I mean the outflow of the pure spring which flows from the
message of your love by which all the slime of the turgidly flowing stream shall
be cleansed, and to all is opened up a way to the proper understanding of our
faith.

2-Just as therefore we brand and blame him, so in the love of the Lord we embrace
your holiness as if present in your own writings, seeing that we think one and
the same about the Lord. And it is no wonder that the most provident bishop of the
39
The Fathers of the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letters 1-50, Letter 12, Translated by John I. McEnerney, revised by
Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, Greek and Latin Texts from: J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 77, Athens 1994, p.89-94.
For the critical text of this letter see Schwartz, ACO 1.1.1, pp. 75-77. Geerard numbers this letter 5312 in CPG. See also
Festugiere, Ephese, 112-114.
16
 Lord fights in behalf of the love of the faith with such valor that he resists the
extraordinary boldness of the adversaries and strengthens those entrusted to him
with such warnings. Just as the former are bitter to us, so the latter are sweet. Just as
they are unclean, so these are pure. We rejoice seeing that such vigilance is in your
piety that you have already surpassed the examples of your predecessors who always
were themselves defenders of the orthodox teaching. Truly the evangelical testimony
shall fit well upon you which says, “The good shepherd lays down his life for his own
sheep.”40 Just as you are a good shepherd, so he is not even worthy of being
denounced as a bad hireling who is accused, not because he abandoned his own
sheep, but because he himself was discovered rending them in pieces.

3-We were about to add some details also, beloved brother, had we not seen that
your thoughts are in complete agreement with ours, and we approve you as a most
strong defender in the confirmation of the faith. Everything, which your holiness has
written concerning this matter was delivered to us in order by our son, Posidonius,
the deacon. You bared all the snares of the treacherous preaching, and you
strengthened the faith so that the heart of those believing in Christ, our God, cannot
he drawn to the other side. This is a great triumph for our faith to show forth our
doctrines so forcefully, and thus to have defeated the opposing doctrines through the
testimony of the divine Scriptures. What shall he accomplish henceforth? Whither
shall he turn himself, who, by becoming a lover of impious innovation, since he
desired to serve himself in his own ideas rather than to serve Christ, was willing to
injure the people who were entrusted to him by the poison of his own preaching? It is
necessary both to understand clearly and to remember that one must flee rather than
seek foolish questions, which do not promote the health of souls but proceed to their
destruction.41

40
Cf. Jn 10.11
41
Cf. Ti 3.9
17
 4-Nevertheless we ought to recall, if we can, one who is hurrying toward the very
crags, or rather already lingering on the crag itself whence he will fall, lest we shall
hasten his fall by not rescuing him. Christ, our God, about whose birth questions are
being raised, taught us42 to take pains for one sheep, desiring to recall it even on his
own shoulders, lest it be exposed to the wolf for prey. And so then, how does he, who
taught us to move so quickly for the safety of one sheep, desire us to take pains for
the shepherd of the sheep himself, who, having forgotten the name itself and the
mandate of shepherd, turned himself into the rapacity of a wolf desiring to destroy
the flock which he himself ought to keep safe? We ought to remove this shepherd
from the fold of the lambs if we do not correct him, as we desire. It is our wish that
there still be hope of pardon for the one being corrected, so that he may return and
live, if he would not destroy the life of those entrusted to him.

5-But let there be an open judgement against him if he continues, for such a wound
must be cut out, by which not one limb is injured, but the whole body of the church is
wounded. For what is he, who differs from our faith and seems to agree only with
himself, doing in the midst of those who agree with each other? Wherefore let them
share in our communion whom he put away from communion because they speak
against him, and let him know that he cannot share our communion if he persists in
this path of perversion by opposing the apostolic teaching.

6-Accordingly, since the authentic teaching of our see is in harmony with you,
using our apostolic authority you will carry out this decree with accurate firmness.
Within ten days, counting from the day of this warning, he should either condemn his
evil teachings by a written confession, and strongly affirm that he himself holds that
belief concerning the birth of Christ, our God, which the Church of Rome, and the
Church of your holiness, and universal devotion upholds, or, if he should not do this,
your holiness, because of care for that church, should immediately understand that he
must be removed from our body in every way who did not desire to receive the

42
CL Lk 15.5
18
 healing of those treating him, and, as an evil pestilence, was driven toward his own
destruction and that of all those entrusted to him.

7-And we wrote the same to our holy brothers and fellow bishops, John, Rufus,
Juvenal and Flavian,43 in order that our judgement concerning him, or rather the
divine judgement of Christ, may be manifest.”

The Council of Ephesus 431 AD

Cyril of Alexandria presided over the Council of Ephesus. Bishop Hefele of Rottenburg the
famous historian writes: “Cyril, as president of the Synod, wrote at greater length to his
friends and agents in Constantinople, the Archimandrite Dalmatius, and several (certainly
Egyptian) bishops and priests, and related to them the whole course of the session from the
citation of Nestorius to his deposition.”44

Celestine addressed a letter to the Emperor dated May 15, 431 “saying that he could not
personally be present at the Synod, but that he would take part in it by commissioners…. As his
legates at the Synod, the Pope appointed the two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, together
with the priest Philippus, and gave them a commission to hold strictly by Cyril.”45

This means: first that the Pope of Rome did not convene the council, second that he himself
had to attend like all other bishops; third that the Pope of Rome was not president of the
council nor his legates were.

Moreover, the council convened, held its first session and took its decision against Nestorius
even before the legates of the Pope of Rome arrive. This decision was endorsed by 200 who
were the attending bishops. The legates of the Pope arrived by the second session.

43
John was Bishop of Antioch, Rufus of Thessalonica, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and Flavian of Philippi.
44
C.J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. III, AMS Press, Edinburgh 1972, reprinted from the edition of 1883,
p. 52.
45
Ibid., p. 42.
19
At the end of the third session all the bishops subscribed a synodal letter addressed to the
Emperor. Hefele states that: “Cyril subscribed in the first place, after him the Presbyter
Philip of Rome, then Juvenal of Jerusalem and then can the two other legates.” 46 At the end
of the sixth session all the bishops who were present subscribed the acts of the council and
Cyril first.47

Another point of importance in this debate is that the bishops of Council of Ephesus did not
take the decision of the Pope of Rome against Nestorius as a final decision but made their
examinations and questionnaire and all required actions for an ecclesiastic theological
debate. The Catholic historian Hefele writes:

“The papal legate Projectus then directed closer attention to the contents of the papal letter,
and especially to the point that the sentence which had already been delivered by the Pope
should be carried into effect for the use of the Catholic church, and in accordance with the
rule of the Catholic faith; that is, that all the bishops should accede to the papal sentence,
and so raise it to the position of a judgment of the whole church. In this matter, according to
the Pope’s opinion, the Synod had no longer to examine whether Nestorius taught error;
this was quite settled by the Roman sentence, and it was only incumbent upon the Synod to
confirm this by their accession. The Synod had in their first session practically taken a
different view, and had introduced a fresh examination as to the orthodoxy of
Nestorius.”48

This proves that the Roman Pope did not have primacy over the church but the council
held that primacy. Consequently, the council held seven sessions that were full of debate
and controversies.

Further, if there was a primate how did John of Antioch convene the concilabulum against
the main council? And why did he remain an adversary and rejecter of the council for nearly
two years later?

46
Ibid., p. 64-65.
47
Ibid., p. 71.
48
Ibid., p. 63.
20
There is a secondary point proving that Cyril presided fully over the council without
referring back to the Pope of Rome before taking any decision. This point is that Cyril
decided against “Juvenal of Jerusalem who endeavoured, among other things, dishonestly
and by presentation of false documents, to get quite free from the patriarchal authority of
the Bishop of Antioch, and to gain the ecclesiastical primacy over Palastine for his own see;
but Cyril of Alexandria, although closely united with Juvenal on the main point, the struggle
against Nestorius and the Antiochenes, yet earnestly opposed this intrigue, and
subsequently reported it to the Pope.”49

Conclusion:

1- In the early centuries every local church preserved and defended the faith from its
side till all the heresies of the first centuries were ultimately refuted and annulled
without having a leader or even convening in a general council.
2- The local churches preserved the apostolic tradition and the oneness of the Church.
3- After the time of persecution, the Church was able to preserve the apostolic faith
through the first three ecumenical councils. These councils were used as a tool
against great dangers which threatened the unity of the universal Church and were
received by different ways in the churches.
4- The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is a clear outcome of these ecumenical councils.
It is worthy of note that the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) have put stress in its
decisions on the preservation of this creed which is till now a symbol of the oneness
of the Church in the first five centuries of Christianity.

49
Ibid., p.77.
21