Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

738 24. the organization of the church
north. Caesarius at Arles (bishop 500–43) exercised the papal vicariate, and
exchanged letters with the bishops of Rome about conciliar decisions in his
area. When in 533 his council at Marseilles condemned and deposed
Contumeliosus of Riez, this drew a rebuke from Agapitus of Rome. 25
The patriarchal system provided a further point of consultation, appeal
and decision. Disputes between metropolitans or charges against them
came to the patriarchal bishop. When support was needed, he could assemble
metropolitans and bishops to meet. Each case was unique: there were
no metropolitans in Egypt, and the heads of churches were summoned to
Alexandria from time to time. Two particular arrangements deserve
mention. Rome had its own metropolitan authority in central Italy, Roma
suburbicaria, whose leaders formed the Roman Synod. But this advised the
pope on matters affecting the wider church: for example, Celestine I in 430
and Leo I in 449 in relation to the christological crises in the east. At
Constantinople, which had no such traditional province, the unique phenomenon
of the synodos endemousa or ‘Resident Synod’ arose: the archbishop
would assemble to advise him the bishops (and sometimes others) who
were at that time in the capital. These might be quite numerous. The
Resident Synod would meet regularly, but could take major decisions, such
as condemning Eutyches in 448. 26
Much more is known about the councils intended to be ‘oecumenical’,
especially those of Ephesus in 431 and Chalcedon in 451, of which full
records survive. From these we know that they were called by imperial
mandate. In spite of his commission from Rome, Cyril in 430 could not
begin his council at Ephesus until he had induced the emperor’s representative,
Candidianus, to read out the imperial sacra authorizing the meeting. 27
The same document stipulated the various roles of the participants: good
order and the exclusion of strangers were an imperial responsibility, doctrine
was ecclesiastical. The history of this and the other great councils
shows that the two could not be so readily separated. Once an agreement
had been reached, however, the assembly would announce its decisions to
the emperor, and he would enforce what was decided. Procedure was modelled
on that of the senate. 28
From the perspective of our documentation one might assume that
councils and controversies occupied much of the time of ancient churchmen.
This is not the case. Some of their work and preoccupations can be
deduced from material like the Merovingian councils.
Occasionally we get closer insights about the clergy. An investigation of
the church at Mopsuestia in preparation for the Oecumenical Council of
25 But see Langgärtner (1964).
26 Jones, LRE 890 translates �νδηµο�σα as ‘visiting’, but the word indicates its permanent (or
domestic) character: Baus in Baus, Beck, Ewig and Vogt (1980) 245: Hajjar (1962).
27 McGuckin (1994) 74–9. 28 Dvornik (1934) and (1966).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008