the status of the patriarch of constantinople 65

The Status of the Patriarchate of Constantinople before 1198

Innocent III’s explanations for patriarchy did not develop without con- text: he drew upon, developed and ignored centuries of discussion and practice. This paper will only indicate those elements in the development of the concept of patriarch that resonate in Innocent’s work, or those that are conspicuously absent.3 In particular, and not surprisingly, the Byzantine understanding of patriarchy and pentarchy does not gure strongly in Innocent’s account. Concerning terminology in this paper: “pentarchy” refers to the notion that, at the head of the Church are the patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, that is, the “idea” of pentarchy and not necessarily a full-blown theory. “Papal monar- chy” indicates the idea that the patriarch of Rome rules the other Churches, including the patriarchates. So understood, “pentarchy” and “papal monarchy” are not mutually exclusive, notwithstanding the literal meaning of the Greek terms. Indeed, much of Innocent’s effort consists in adapting the notion of pentarchy to the requirements of papal monarchy. Part of his solution lies in another terminological distinction. “Apostolic foundation” signi es the claim that an apostle founded a certain Church, whether directly or (in the case of Alex- andria) through a disciple. “Apostolicity” broadly indicates the claim that one or more Churches inherit their authority from that granted to the apostles. Innocent’s letters associate two distinct notions with apostolicity: the authority deriving from apostolic foundation and the authority as having the rank (dignitas) of apostle. While Innocent does not deny apostolicity in the rst sense to the patriarchs, his presenta- tion treats apostolicity as insuf cient, rooting patriarchal authority in an association (foundational or national) with the four Evangelists. Innocent reserves “apostolic rank” for the bishop of Rome by virtue of Petrine succession.

3 For the status of patriarchs and the notion of pentarchy, see V. Peri, “La Pentarchia: istituzione ecclesiale (IV–VII sec.) e teoria canonico-teologica,” Bisanzio, Roma e l’Italia nell’Alto Medioevo, Centro Italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, vol. 1 (Spoleto, 1988), pp. 209–311; F. R. Gahbauer, Die Pentarchietheorie: ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Frankfurt, 1993). Peri’s discussion traces the practical operation and theoretical foundation of the ve patriarchs in the Greek and Latin worlds up to the end of the 12th century—in other words, right before the conquest of Constantinople and the period considered here. Gahbauer details globally the development of the idea and the theory of pentarchy. 66 william o. duba

The notion of patriarch nds its origins in the Council of Nicaea (325), canon 6: 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 In canon 7, the bishop of Jerusalem is assigned “the next place of honour.” By these determinations, the council established a level of jurisdiction above that of the archbishops, and based in the major population centres of the fourth century. The basis for this division appeared purely administrative: the large cities housed the centres of Roman government, and hence there should be the centres of the Church. The Western emperors did not remain long in Rome, however, and the importance of Constantinople grew rapidly. The bishops of Rome insisted that their authority and prominence came not from the rapidly declining importance of the city of Rome and the Western emperors, but on apostolic grounds, as the bishopric founded by Saint Peter. Meanwhile, New Rome, the centre of Eastern Christianity, made its own claim to administrative superiority. The Councils of Constanti- nople (381) and Chalcedon (451) included canons declaring that, since the imperial city of Constantinople was the New Rome, therefore the Church of Constantinople was to enjoy the rights and privileges of Rome and be second to it.5 The Roman popes rejected this canon, or rather its logic: their rank derived from apostolic foundation, not imperial sanction; Antioch, Alex- andria and Rome were all founded by Saint Peter, whence they derive their prestige and authority. Constantinople, a relative newcomer, could not leap past Antioch and Alexandria and enjoy second place for purely political reasons.6 Thus Pope Leo I sternly rebuffed what he saw as an infringement of the Nicene arrangement and refused to recognize the relevant canon of the Council of Chalcedon.7

4 F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 8. 5 Ibid., pp. 45ff. 6 Peri, “La pentarchia,” pp. 240–243. 7 Leo Magnus, Letter 56, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwarz, t. 2, vol. 4 (Berlin, 1932), pp. 59–62.