Church History and Apologetics - Interview Transcriptions of Richard Price

Having recently invested in and recommending that Protestants become more engaged in apologetics relating to church history (link), I would like to recommend Richard Price's works as an entry point for those who already have a basic understanding of Trinitarian and Christological heresies - many of which you can read for free here. 

While the author is a Roman Catholic scholar, his collection, selection, translation, chronology, and notes of documents leading up to, the acts of, and events following the various "ecumenical" councils are not only fair, they are regarded as a gold standard one will find many Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox, and Protestant apologists refer to when discussing church history.

His books are readily available. The focus of this post is to make more available some answers he's given to interview questions. I've only transcribed select material that I found apologetically relevant or otherwise interesting; the full interviews are linked below for those who want further context, information, or to verify the timestamps and language I've tried to clean up for smoothness of reading. 

Here, I won't add any commentary of my own, although emphases will be mine. I find that Price's analysis - even if one would not agree with him in every respect - needs little exposition for a Protestant to be able to recognize how many of his statements indirectly support sola scriptura against various proposals for infallible, extra-biblical traditions. Hopefully, this makes for an approachable gateway that encourages Protestants in particular to further investigate and, indeed, be benefit from reading early church history.

Church Councils

At minute mark 5:20, Price says: 

One thing which I've come to realize is that the doctrine as expressed in the church councils is far from precise in that - yes, brief, clearcut statements - but they do not explain the terminology. When they say that Christ, for example, has two natures, they do not tell you how they are understanding the word "nature." Or when they say that Christ has two wills, again, they have not actually asked themselves what exactly were the concepts of "will" that the bishops used and understood. So another thing that's become clear to me is that so far from you having, as used to be imagined, theologians thinking and arguing their disagreements - they come together and agreement is made on a particular statement of the doctrine, and then that's tied up - it is almost always the other way around. First of all, there had been a dispute, they summon a council in the hope of restoring unity, they adopt a formula. But very often the theology which is needed to explain that formula had not in fact yet been developed. So you have the development of interpretation of these definitions subsequently. It's only at the end of that process that the definitions are understood to have a particular meaning.

At minute mark 18:25, Price says:

How was agreement achieved? Well, they were imperial councils in a stronger sense: the fact that the emperor sponsored them. They were generally controlled by the emperor, and the emperor dictated not only the issues to be decided but quite rather often the actual conclusions that were drawn. The Council of Chalcedon: they wanted to produce a definition of the nature - the makeup of Christ - and they came up with their famous definition that Christ is "in" two natures, divine and human. 

Now, the eastern bishops were uncomfortable with this. They would have preferred the expression that Christ is "from" two natures - and we needn't discuss here the difference in meaning between "from" and "in" in this context. But what led the council to adopt the "in" formula is because the Roman representatives representing the thought of pope Leo the Great - what they insisted upon. They threatened to leave the council if the Roman preference for "in" two natures was not accepted. And the eastern Bishops gave way. Why did they give way? Because the emperor told them to. He threatened that if they didn't give way, he would end the council and there'd be another Council in the West to settle the matter. So council after council, the emperor in fact effectively dictates to the bishops the conclusions they are to come to. 

Now. of course, Emperors weren't fools. They weren't tyrants who thought they could just tell the church what it had to do, what it had to believe. It was well aware that its own clout inevitably had its limitations. But council after council, the actual matters being discussed and even the conclusions largely come from imperial direction.

At minute mark 29:42, Price says:

The bishops adopt formulas, but they don't have serious discussion about what exactly these formulas mean. And this means that although clearly the concern is with the truth of the Christian faith, the political element of achieving harmony in the church through agreed formulas is actually the prime element. I mean, either where there is quite easy to achieve agreement (or where there isn't, of course) - where there are serious differences in formulas, they have to adopt one formula rather than another. But still, the desire is, adopt - under imperial direction - to adopt definitions that will be accepted both in the West and in (at least) large parts of the East. So this angle - to call it political perhaps seems a bit pejorative - but the aim is essentially to restore harmony in the church through agreed formulas. That is the aim, not to discuss what exactly these formulas mean. 

And that's why I said so often the development is - it's not the theological debate that leads to the council being able to define something that is generally understood. Instead, defined formulas are adopted to establish continuing, communion harmony between East and West. And it's the task of later theologians to actually develop the theological understanding that makes sense of these definitions, that gives them a definite meaning, and which fits them into a developed and harmonious doctrine about God - Jesus Christ. 

At minute mark 32:37, the interviewer asks, "Regarding an earlier note that you mentioned, it seems like dogma or heresies are like a Schrödinger's cat - one dogma is both a heresy and not a heresy until it wins. So what are the mechanisms in process of how one doctrinal position wins and the other one becomes a heresy." Price responds:

Now, to what extent was there what we would call serious theological debate? There's something of that, but much less than we might have expected. But the trouble here partly is that it's mistake to think that the acts are a complete record. Now, the Council of Chalcedon, its incisive session was the fifth session in which the draft definition (produced by a committee) was presented and discussed by the bishops. And a large number of eastern bishops objected to the use of a formula deriving from pope Leo the Great's tome talking of Christ being "in" two natures and said that they much preferred the "from" two natures formula that the great Cyril of Alexandria had developed. And Cyril of Alexandria was regarded in the Greek East as being the greatest writer on Christology. 

Now, at this session, there were clearly - the acts do tell us that the Greek bishops expressed unhappiness in formula "in" two natures. But the fact is that the session went on for hours until they finally adjourned it while consulting the emperor across the Bosphorus. And the emperor wrote back, firmly dictated how they had to come together - small committee of bishops had to come together. They had to accept the Roman formula and then present that to rest of the bishops who rubber stamped it. But this initial discussion among the bishops and must on for on for some time could well have been a really - not just slogans being charged against each other - but there must have been elements of real, theological discussion. But none of that comes in the acts. The acts gives a very - it only gives a few pages.

At minute mark 38:55, Price says:

I'm going to, when I speak this evening, urge young scholars who still have this very good field to explore - the extent to which conciliar acts did actually circulate and were read. They're not, as I said, simply the stenographic record of everything that was read out and said - that had to be like modern records of parliamentary debates - then stored away in the archives somewhere. These are carefully edited texts in which there is a lot omitted. And sometimes, there are elements in them that we can tell are simply fictitious. 

I'm going to talk this evening about the first seven sessions of the third council of Constantinople that define that Christ has two wills and two operations. Now, uniquely, for this council, we have a narrative account of its first seven sessions in The Liber Pontificalis, which is a Roman collection of short biographies of each of the popes in turn. And this gives a summary count of these first seven sessions. 

Well, the number of sessions - their dates, the order of sessions - is different from that in the Greek acts (which were then translated into Latin, of course), the official acts. And, in fact, it's the record in The Liber Pontificalis that makes sense, while the order in the Greek acts does not make good sense. And if you say, "Well, why do they rearrange it?"  - in order to establish a sort of sequence, a hierarchy of authority. You start with citing preceding councils, then you get on to papal statements (the pope is the chief of all bishops), then you make your way down to a lower level, so that the sequence follows that. It's clear even from the statements claimed in the Greek acts that the actual historical order of discussion was really very different. Now, this, of course, is an unusual case, but yes, the acts are carefully a compiled record, which must be serving a propagandist purpose.

At minute mark 45:32, Price says:

There's not very much of proper theological debate at these councils: partly because it is omitted by acts that want to represent the bishops were more of one mind than they were, and partly because the important consideration is that the prime criterion of Christian orthodoxy is fidelity to the tradition. Theology is not seen in these centuries as being a question of developing Christian thought. That phrase "the development of Christian doctrine" is a modern one. Their concern is to proclaim and define doctrines that have been inherited, and the chief test of truth is whether you find these doctrines taught by earlier fathers. Carefully produced florilegia argue that the fathers had teaching on these matters, where a modern historian will most likely point out that when the fathers were writing at a slightly earlier date, the theology had not yet been fully developed, and a general understanding had yet to be reached.

Conciliar Acts

At minute mark 9:02, Price says:

The title "ecumenical" or "worldwide" accorded to the great councils of late antiquity depended not on attendance by bishops from the entire Christian world - something that was neither achieved nor even attempted - but on convocation by the emperor, who was believed to be God's viceroy throughout the world. Even if much of the world failed to recognize him, the same claim was still being made by the by the Byzantine emperor at the time of the Council of Florence in the 15th century, even though his territory by then had been reduced to the largely derelict city of Constantinople and its immediate hinterland.

At minute mark 14:46, Price says:

In 431, Theodosius II summoned the first council of Ephesus with a similar purpose: to restore peace to the church after accusations of heresy had got out of hand. Hundreds of bishops dutifully made their way to Ephesus, but they never met together in a single body. And, indeed, such a gathering would have been pandemonium. Councils were chaired in consort by the senior bishops present. But how, on this occasion, would this have been possible? For the bishop of Alexandria had accused the bishop of Constantinople of heresy, while the bishop of Antioch had made the same charge against the bishop of Alexandria. There was no senior bishop acceptable to all as chairman. And how could a board of chairman operate? And several of them were themselves under accusation. Predictably, therefore, the bishops refused to meet under one roof. But the emperor refused to take the dispute seriously. In his eyes, the bishops were behaving like quarrelsome children. He thought it sufficient to tell them to behave, to meet together to discuss the faith calmly and with decorum, and produce a common statement of faith. Episcopal principle was as incomprehensible to him as episcopal acrimony. After three months, he gave up and dissolved the council.

At minute mark 28:44, Price says:

A curious situation arose in Rome in the 640s. Maximus the confessor and other monks from Palestine arrived as refugees fleeing from the Muslim conquest and persuaded pope Theodore that the Byzantine church - through its support of the doctrine that there is but one will in Christ - had fallen into the heresy of monothelitism. It was decided that the best way to restore orthodoxy was to hold a council in Rome which would issue proceedings that combined full conciliar authority with a convincing statement of the anti-monothelite - that, is the dyothelite - position. Substantial florilegia were compiled of passages showing that the orthodox fathers had been dyothelite, accompanied by florilegia filled out with fictitious passages showing that the great heretics of the past had been monothelite. 

But the problem was that these florilegia were far from compelling. They needed to be supplemented by detailed argumentation. Now, the pope and the Italian bishops were not up to this. Indeed, at councils, bishops were expected to discern the truth but not to play at being theologians. The solution adopted was for Maximus and his team to compose the speeches required - which they did in Greek - for these to be translated into Latin and inserted in the acts of the council that was duly held under the chairmanship of Theodore's successor pope Martin in 649. What actually happened at the sessions? Rudolf Riedinger, the author of the critical addition of the acts, supposed the proceedings had been fully composed before the council even met - that the bishops simply listened to a reading of this fictitious document and added their signatures. An Italian scholar suggested more plausibly that the acts provided a script that the bishops read from. It seems to me more likely that the speeches were never read out at all. 

A pleasing touch in the acts is that the Greek monks put in an appearance at one of the sessions and requested that the acts be translated into Greek - although, in fact, the Greek version was the original one and they had themselves composed it. The Metropolitan bishops with sees that were also provincial capitals were the star performers at councils. In contrast, their suffragans were lobby fodder. The typical procedure, once a matter had been put before the council, was of the leading metropolitans to carry out a discussion and reach a common mind. At this point, all the bishops could then be asked to state their opinion - now that it was clear to them what opinion they were required to express! And after a vote of this kind, they all had to sign the acts of the session. Abstention, still less dissent, was not permitted during the doctrinal debates of the council of Chalcedon. The boldest voice for the opposition, after the deposition of Dioscorus, was bishop Amphilochius of Side in Anatolia. Even he signed the definition when placed before him, after he had been struck on the head by the archdeacon of Constantinople.

At minute mark 34:52, Price says:

As I've said, after a case had been discussed in a council and the chairman - in the light of the discussion - had given his verdict, dissent was not permitted. This could lead to problems if the chairman was nodding. Notorious case with near disastrous consequences occurred at the Council of Chalcedon, when the deposed bishop Ibas of Edessa presented an appeal for reinstatement. Since the council that had deposed him - the so-called "robber council of Ephesus - was in deep disgrace, his reinstatement was certain. But the council felt obliged to give a hearing to the charges that had been brought against him. 

Tenth in the list on the charge sheet was the following sad and vivid tale. At a commemoration of the holy martyrs, no wine was provided to be offered in the holy sanctuary, consecrated, and distributed to the people, except for a very small amount of poor quality, full of dregs and only just harvested - with the result that those appointed to minister were obliged to buy wine of poor quality from a tavern (six pints of it) and even this was not enough. Meanwhile, in the sacristy, the senior clergy were drinking, had kept for themselves - as they always do - a quite different wine of superlative quality. The one in charge of the ministers, though, is told about it, so that he who'd give a frank report to the bishop did nothing. And so it fell to us to inform the most devout bishop who, however, so far from being stirred into action by our report, paid no attention, the result that many in our city were scandalized. 

The really important charge came next - is almost a perfunctory tree in its brevity: Ibas is a Nestorian and calls the blessed bishop Cyril a heretic. In the course of this hearing at Chalcedon, a letter was read out that Ibas had written almost 20 years before - soon after the first council of Ephesus - in which he severely criticized both the council and its dominating chairman, Cyril of Alexandria. This letter was an acute embarrassment at Chalcedon, where most of the bishops hugely revered Cyril's memory. It fell to Pascasinus, a bishop from Sicily who was the senior papal legate, to deliver the first and decisive verdict. Inevitably, he ruled in favor of the reinstatement of Ibas in the see of Edessa, but unfortunately, he added the words, "and from the reading of his letter, we have found him to be orthodox." We can only suppose that he had failed to grasp the contents of the letter - his Greek was limited, he always spoke Latin himself, his attention may well have been wandering during the reading of some lengthy documents which were not going to have any effect on the outcome. But conciliar etiquette imposed a requirement of unanimity. This made it impossible for the bishops who spoke after him to express disagreement. Bishop Maximus of Antioch actually repeated his commendation of the letter, not out of conviction - he was firmly in the cerulean camp - but because his tenure of his own see was insecure and depended on papal support. The other bishops as they delivered their verdicts wisely omitted all reference to the letter. 

A century later, Pascasinus' and Maximus' praise of the letter became a major problem when the Three Chapters, one of which was the same letter from Ibas, were condemned by both the Emperor Justinian and the second council of Constantinople, crowning a controversy of which Gibbons said that it has received more volumes than it deserved lines. Justinian argued that the approval of the letter by a mere two bishops at Chalcedon had not committed the whole council. But the seniority of Pascasinus as papal legate made it impossible to dismiss his verdict so lightly. 

Instead, a more desperate remedy was soon adopted: it was claimed that Pascasinus and Maximus had not been referring to this letter at all but to another document read out at this session - a testimonial in Ibas's support that he had forced 65 with his clergy to sign, which could surely be called Ibas's letter in a weaker sense of the phrase. And surely Pascasinus must have been praising, not the letter that disgraced Ibas, but the one that exonerated him. But if Pascasinus had not been referring to Ibas's shocking letter, this left the other bishops with no excuse for failing to speak out against it. 

Critics of Chalcedon cited this episode as evidence that the council had been tolerant of attacks on Cyril of Alexandria, who by the sixth century was universally acclaimed as a supreme exponent of the doctrine about Christ. This was the Achilles heel in the attempt by Justinian to persuade the many anti-Chalcedonian Christians that their devotion to the memory of Cyril was perfectly compatible with accepting the council. In all, the convention by which the verdicts of chairman had to be confirmed and could never be criticized simplified matters in the short-term but in the long-term was a recipe for a potential disaster. In this case, an inattentive chairman marred the memory of the greatest of the councils.

The Council of Ephesus

At minute mark 4:10, Price says:

Cyril of Alexandria claimed that this position was a denial that Christ is God. It's separating Christ the man from the second person of the Trinity. So he responded to Nestorius with his famous 12 anathemas, of which the 12th is particularly - well, they all stand out - twelfth is particularly telling, runs, "the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and died in the flesh." This seemed to the Syrians to be blasphemous nonsense, and it was not yet widespread, common theology. Now, when we get Chalcedon 20 years later (451), Cyril was treated by everybody as being the greatest writer about Christ - treated with huge respect even by the Syrians of that council. But the council completely ignored the 12 anathemas and it did not reproduce its teaching in its own definition. There was still a sense of embarrassment and awkwardness about them. Only in the sixth century was it generally accepted - not quite accurately - that the council of Chalcedon had given its approval to these anathemas.

At minute mark 6:36, Price says:

What is meant by an ecumenical council? Now, nowadays, we think of Vatican II, and we think of a council that bishops come to from the whole catholic world, and that's essential for it being ecumenical. But this was not what was understood in the drawing of those seven councils from the fourth to the eighth centuries. For them, the key thing was that the councils are summoned by the emperor. Now, the emperor was regarded as God's viceroy on earth. Indeed, in the seventh century one meets the expression I find quite bizarre - that God is the emperor's co-emperor. As Constantine already claimed this - that God has entrusted all earthly things to my concern - so what made a council economical is that it was summoned by the emperor as an imperial council. And at the end of it, it was the emperor who who published the decrees. And it didn't matter that in practice, the bishops were from a quite a limited geographical range.

At minute mark 8:31, Price says:

Now, in the case of Ephesus, there's a particular curiosity because there were the council's bishops all summoned. The emperor intended they all meet together, come to a common mind. Well, they didn't meet together! Cyril opened the with the majority of the bishops there on his side before the Syrians arrived. The Syrians arrived and set up a rival council. They have in one city (Ephesus) two rival councils going on, attacking and condemning each other. Strictly speaking, the council never properly met. 

Now, after after the council, the Syrians came - Cyril's council which was certainly the majority one, condemned Nestorius - and the Syrians came to accept that condemnation, which means a gradual acceptance by everybody of this council as ecumenical. And that is standard by the time you reach Ephesus in 451. But the problem remains for us. Can we really call this council ecumenical? But it never properly met! The bishops never properly met together. [Here, the interviewer asks, "and when you when you say the bishops never properly met together, can you maybe just briefly expand on that?" Price responds,] Well, bishops meeting together means they meet together and discuss together, debate together, and vote together. When you've got the council split into two parts that anathematize each other, that's pretty funny as a ecumenical council. And the emperor - I said the ecumenical council is, in a sense, an imperial council - and the emperor Theodosius II never ruled. He never said, "This. I count this council. This half of it is genuine and the other is not." No, he though accepted some of the decrees of the Cyrillian - the majority - council, he never made any ruling as to which of the council really had his full backing and authority.

At minute mark 16:02, the interviewer asks, "You've mentioned here the emperor. And we know he historically had a pretty vital role when it comes to the ecumenical council. So can you maybe speak to what role did he play specifically at Ephesus during the council?" Price responds: 

Well, of course, both sides appealed to him. So there he was, in his simplicity: he'll get the bishops together, and they'll sort it out. But, I mean, the fool! He didn't ask himself who's going to chair this council. I mean, now, later councils are often chaired by high-ranking, imperial officials. But he sent a comparatively junior representative to Ephesus and told him not to interfere with the doctrinal debate. 

Now of the bishops there, the one - well there's two people who are most accepted as being a sort of (roughly speaking) at the top - the Roman legates, of course, were regarded as the most senior. But they arrived very late, only when ready the council had split up into two and condemned each other. So their presence wasn't decisive. 

Cyril of Alexandria? Very important, but of course the Syrians won't accept him chairing the council. And they - the Egyptians, their allies - won't accept Nestorius as chairing the council. So it was a hopeless situation. So it really - I mean, the emperor, as I say, he made a mess of it. He should have - now, after that, emperors are much more careful. They dictate the agenda. Sometimes they quite openly dictate the decisions the council of God has got to come to. Now, of course, we now just think this is improper. But remember the emperor is chosen by God to keep the church orthodox.

At minute mark 20:19, the interviewer asks, "Was Nestorius really a Nestorian?" Price responds:

Well, well! I mean what's one mean by Nestorian? Now, of course, what Cyril of Alexandria accused Nestorius of was not believing that Christ is God. He simply an inspired man like the prophets. Now, well, and later on this becomes the standard view of people by Chalcedon. Of course, there's some Syrians who are not very happy with this, but they don't make a great fuss about it. But really, from now on, Cyril is the voice of Christological orthodoxy. 

And Nestorius is condemned for denying that Christ is God. Now, of course, modern historians looking at what we have of Nestorius' writing which is enough really to say, "This is not fair on him." And also that the Syrian bishops were not condemned as heretics, and the fact is that Nestorius' teaching was shared by the Syrians. They shared this understanding (we can't say the Christ was the one who was born the Christ who suffered on the cross). But they they all affirmed this union, this coming together of manhood in Godhead in Christ. And that's still what is taught at Chalcedon. As I said to you already, Chalcedon didn't go the whole way with Cyril, with making the divine Christ the one subject in Christ.

At minute mark 28:07, Price says:

The original Nicene creed wasn't a complete creed. It was simply condemning Arius over Christology. So after it's very important and innovative clauses about Christ, it then says "and in the Holy Spirit." Full stop. And then it gives a series of anathemas against Christological heresy. Voltaire rather naughtily said, "The Nicene creed treats the Holy Spirit very cavalierly." 

Now, by the end of the fourth century in Constantinople, a new version of the creed had appeared that added what was surely needed: an article on the Holy Spirit. A very cautious one, it restricts itself to biblical expressions. So it doesn't say the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with Father and Son. So if you stick absolutely strictly to this canon of Ephesus, saying "you must have nothing to the Nicene creed," well, the creed we all use - the creed of Constantinople with this article in the Holy Spirit - would seem ruled out. But I think but that wouldn't quite be fair, because the fact is that people were ready to accept that there were varied versions of the creed on the condition you kept the essential parts of Christ's full Godhead. The wording of the rest, people didn't make a fuss about additions. 

As regards the later debate, yes, you see, what about adding the filioque? Well, and, of course, the easterners like saying this is improper - to make such an addition without an economical council. But I said, you see, already, I mean, the original article of the Holy Spirit was itself an unauthorized addition and was accepted as such. But, now, this does get on to one very fundamental issue about councils: where does supreme authority lie in the church? Now the Eastern Orthodox have attributed unique authority to ecumenical councils.

At minute mark 31:30, Price says:

Already at this, there are very big differences over the question supreme authority. The Roman legates and the popes - most markedly from the time of Leo I - at the time of Chalcedon onwards, were quite definite that the supreme authority in the church lies with the heir of saint Peter, that his teaching has full authority, that it does not need to be confirmed by an economical council. Now the legates of these ecumenical councils always made that clear - now, you may say, "why didn't the Byzantines object?" 

Well, they're sensible people. If you're meeting together with representatives of the popes, and you want together to approve the veneration of images or definition of Christ in two natures or two wills - this isn't the moment to start saying that you object to what the Romans are saying about authority. The Byzantines are perfectly happy. They never said we agree that Rome has this unique authority. They're perfectly happy together with the legates to draw up and issue these these definitions. Now, in the east, these definitions of councils have unique authority because the emperor - who is God's representative on earth - publishes them. In the west, they have authority because the pope puts his stamp on them.

At minute mark 34:47, Price says:

The Roman legates tended to say Rome's decided to forgive Photius and reinstate him, and they wanted the easterners to agree to it. And the easterners said, "Look, we reinstated him years ago. We're not going to reinstate him now. We're not going to set you off your you know your dictate on this." But still, essentially, whilst both sides agree to accept Photius as patriarch so that they - I say, they manage this really, really quite well. They agree there wasn't a common agreement where exactly authority lies in the church. As long as Christians of east and west and the emperor were reading from the same hymn sheet, differences about exactly where authority lies - where precedence - lies that could be put to the one side.

At minute mark 36:33, Price says:

They wanted to produce a Christological definition. And they produced a committee under the patriarch of Constantinople - produced a draft - which talked of Christ being "from" two natures. Now, the Romans didn't like that, because they felt there's a danger here. "From" - it might be "out of," as if the difference between the two is somehow blurred or lost. So they preferred this the expression "in" two natures. And so the emperor's representatives - high officials - told the Greek bishops, "Yes, well look, we must replace in the draft 'from' two natures to 'in' two natures." And the bishops protested strongly. They said they refused to. So what did they do? 

Well, there was a brief adjournment a few hours while a number of them went across the Bosphorus to consult the emperor. And they got a message back from the emperor saying, "Either agree to 'in' two natures and dropping 'from' two natures, or I'll end this council and we'll have another ecumenical council in Italy." It was absolutely clear dictation to the eastern bishops, and the eastern bishops gave way. Why did they give way? 

Well, I mean obviously - if "in" two natures was manifestly heretical, they wouldn't have given way. They wouldn't be allowed to be dictated to if was manifestly heretical. When it came to a wording that would please the emperor and the pope and which they could interpret as, in a way - whatever way they liked - they were ready to go along with that. 

And, of course, that you said they did they did recognize that the emperor is God's anointed one. And it happens again and again in these councils. I said they're lovely examples of eastern and western bishops meeting together, although they don't agree on where supreme authority lies in the church, but these councils would not have been possible if you do not have emperors in Constantinople who wanted to bring the whole church together.

Now, politics entered into some extent. Emperor Marcian in 451 was a usurper in the west. He wanted to be recognized in the east - usurper. He won't be recognized in the west, so he wanted Roman backing. So this was a bit of a quid pro quo. And later, I think, of course the Byzantine emperor has an interest in trying to hold the desperate parts of the Roman empire together. He wants to find some theological agreement. But quite false, though, to say that the emperors was simply thinking of politics, because they believe that their success of their rule depended on divine favor. And they would only secure divine favor if they preserve the unity of the church.

At minute mark 39:32, the interviewer asks, "One last question there about papal authority at Ephesus. What was the reaction of the council fathers to the papal legate Phillip at the council, especially what he said to the council?" Price responds:

I can't make the exact wording of it. He did make most quite clear - expressed Rome's view of its supreme authority. But I say, the bishops - Cyril and his bishops - took the sensible path. Since the Romans were ready to accept the decisions of the Cyrillian council, they just didn't respond. They didn't comment on these claims made by the Roman legates. They took rather, you know, "matter-of-form, coming from Rome. They feel they have to say this." They go back to Rome, they want to say, "Oh yeah, we stood up for pope's authority." But they knew that in the actual context of the council, Rome and Alexandria were in alliance, and this wasn't the time to start having awkward debates about the hierarchy in the church.

At minute mark 46:03, Price says:

Saying that great episodes defined our lady as Theotokos - that is a development in perhaps the late sixth century. The earliest I found it for is in a council synopsis, a sort of brief summary account of all the councils, written about 600, which says this: yes, the council defined that Mary is Theotokos. But strictly speaking, being perhaps a bit pedantic, there wasn't such a decree.

At minute mark 46:50, the interviewer asks, "What does father price think where Eastern Orthodox are wrong on the papacy in the first millennium?" Price responds:

Now, look, here I am, Roman Catholic priest, and, of course, I accept the papal authority in the Roman Catholic communion. There've been popes and popes and popes, and some of them would rather regrets. But it's an immense strength in Roman Catholicism that we do have a leader who can speak for the whole church and who can intervene in some cases to suppress - well, it's not always - sometimes, popes have condemned what shouldn't have been condemned. But he is a great voice of unity, and so the position of the pope, I don't doubt it for a moment. 

But as regards doctrine of papal infallibility, frankly, the doctrine of - now, Catholics are meant to teach, to hold, that all the pope's formal definitions as a pope are infallible. But that isn't the case! If I asked a deformed Catholic, what infallible definitions, formal definitions issued by the pope are infallible, they'd say, "Well, the immaculate conception in 1854, then the assumption." What about all the earlier papal rulings? "Oh, they weren't in fact intended to be infallible." They were! 

Frequently, popes laid down, with the full authorities of saint Peter, that this or that is the case. Why have these papal utterances not being collected together? I mean, there's been a Denzinger collection full of papal pronouncements, but some of which, of course, now look rather dated. But why have people not said, "If we held the popes have always been infallible, what were their infallible pronouncements?" Why has this not been done? 

I think the reason is that although people say we hold as doctrine the pope is infallible, that's not really what was recognized as achieved by the first Vatican council. What it was doing was setting up a papal, absolute monarchy - which has its advantages and, also, possibly some disadvantages. So, I'm the last person to say the Eastern Orthodoxy ought to accept papal infallibility. 

At minute mark 49:54, Price says: 

I think people - as regards earlier people pronouncements - I don't think people say, "The pope, said this, that settles it." No. They would look at the whole tradition of the church that has been handed down, and they refer to papal pronouncements, such as the great tome of pope Leo, as being very valuable and documents of weighty authority. But it's not simply, "Rome has spoken, this settles everything." It's a sense that down the centuries, the popes have articulated what is the common faith of Catholics.

At minute mark 50:34, the interviewer asks, "Did Cyril believe that celestine had the authority to definitively excommunicate Nestorius and had jurisdiction to do it and there was no need for a council?" Price responds: 

Oh gosh. No. No, I don't think that Cyril or generally the eastern bishops from fourth century onwards recognize that the pope himself has the authority to excommunicate or depose. No, they did not recognize papal authority of jurisdiction in the eastern provinces.

At minute mark 51:32, the interviewer asks, "Can the non-challenge given to legate Phillip's statement be taken as a tacit admission that the East view the western view on the pope is the head of the faith as orthodox?" Price responds: 

Well, the East agreed that the pope is the number one bishop, and that his words have weight. But you do not find in the East the idea of Roma locuta causa finita est: the pope has spoken that settles the matter. No, they did not recognize - take the tome of pope Leo. Now, that circulated in the west, where as soon as Marcian becomes emperor in 450 and bishops meet together in Syria and also in Constantinople and acclaim and approve it. Now, people are not saying the pope's spoken, that's it - that settles it. No, if it was to be accepted in the eastern church, this required eastern bishops coming together and giving it their approval.

At minute mark 54:13, Price says:

We have records of sessions - brief accounts of the sessions - held both by Cyril's council and by the rival Syria. Not complete by no manner of means, but the matters that were very important and debated and circulated, we know about them. But they're just two sessions of the council where there are what purport to be a complete record. 

One is the first meeting of the council that deposed Nestorius. Now, we know that that meeting went on for the whole day, because we hear the reference later. Afterwards, "the lamp's been lit towards the evening, the bishops are still debating." Now, we've got acts - we've got a record - of this, it's quite long. But it would it couldn't have filled the whole day. So what is there is selected material, selected by Cyril and his team as a bit of propaganda to send to Constantinople. 

It doesn't mention the fact that the imperial representative turned up, beginning of the session, and told the bishops they had no business meeting before the Syrians had arrived. But they said, "Are you sure of that?" He said, "Yes, the emperor's instructions." "Can you read us the emperor's instructions?" He reads them out. They said, "Oh! That's it, council's begin with a reading of the emperor's instructions, you've read out the instructions, so the council has opened!" and threw him out - had him removed from the chamber. So that's a bit curious. 

Now, the other sessions which purports to be substantial is a session a month later that we've already discussed - that canon saying that only the Nicene creed could be used. Now, this is a very odd document, because it consists of a series of documents - very clumsily cobbled together - where there are some remarks by spokesmen from outside or largely taken from the session of June the 22nd. So it scarcely attempts to be a proper record of a session. And, also, this decree stressing the authority of Nicaea and implicitly condemning - I refer to Theodore Mopsuestia the leading Antiochene who issued a much longer creed - implicitly condemning that. Now, we hear nothing about this for whole year. Now, if this session had taken place, there would have been a reaction to it from the Syrians. No reaction at all. So it's beginning to look that the whole session is a concoction of a year later. It's very curious. This is a very curious thing to happen. 

I mean, consider. Reading conciliar acts, they very rarely give you a complete record of everything that was said - in the way that what you have in America, in England. We have had famous reports of what all the MPs have said. They sometimes improve it - when MPs speak with a bit of slang or their grammar goes a bit haywire - they'll amend that. But otherwise it's a verbatim record. 

Now, we just don't have that for economical councils. A possible exception, I think, being what we call the eighth council of 869-70. That does, to my reading through with a great, critical eye. It does read very plausibly. It's a pretty complete record. But otherwise, what gets published is selective. Sometimes, of course, to suppress, reduce the amount of - not publicizing - disagreement. 

So Chalcedon 451, they they produce this definition. And this session - the fifth session - was the key one where this was debated. Well, none of that debate is included in the record, which is very short (only a few pages). Clearly, they didn't want to mention the fact that a number of bishops had spoken critically of the draft because that would be used by opponents of the council. So that is hushed up. So one has to be aware, reading conciliar acts, that they're a selective record. 

I've intended, of course, to convey authentically what the council had decreed. But they're not, of course, they're more than just a sort of brief bit of propaganda for wide circulation. Because, how many people read these records? Ephesus, now Chalcedon, were read a lot in the sixth century, because of great debate over the three chapters and that sort of thing. But on the whole, yes, they're halfway between official minutes that get simply filed away in a cabinet somewhere and simple publicity to be widely circulated. There's a bit of a halfway point between those two, and a reader of acts has to be aware of the extent to which they have been tidied up and a greater degree of uniformity is introduced than was necessary, than was probably the case. 

Though there, if I may say, Chalcedon is extraordinarily frank in its first session about disagreement, express, and at the end it declared Dioscorus and half a dozen other leading bishops in the east deposed. And this is a decree made - a judgment made - by the lay chairman presiding over the session. The bishops weren't asked, so here we find a council that's so far from hiding the fact that the emperor's dictating to the bishop. Bishops actually make a point of stressing it, because the bishops they felt disgrace themselves. At Ephesus too, a few years before, you see a condemning of Flavian of Constantinople. 

So the emperor's playing a major role, and one that did not cause him embarrassment, because, it was felt, that the emperors are there as God's appointed ones. And as I've said it was a great value. It greatly aided Christian unity in this period, the fact that however bishops might disagree, the emperor's the person who above all had a responsibility for holding the church together and assuring that God's people would continue to enjoy God's favor.

At minute mark 1:02:48, Price says:

It wasn't like meetings of the Senate, where a matter of a Roman Senate would be proposed, and all the Senators in turn could speak and could make counter-proposals. It was very open. Now, the ecumenical councils worked differently. There would be discussion, certainly. And then, however, a single decision, a decree (might be a longish document, it might be a very brief decision) would be presented by the chairman at - well, all the chairmen, in the plural, I mean. What we call Cyril's council - he was the leading figure, if you like, but there were half a dozen senior bishops also, as well, shared the chairing with him. 

Now they would produce a proposal. And then the bishop spoke in turn by seniority. And what was not possible once - now, the senior bishop it well, I mean, there's a number of chairmen working together at Ephesus. If you go on to Chalcedon, the senior bishop is the pope's representative, Pascasinus of Lilybaeum. Well, now, what he would do - he would get a discussion going, and then at the end of it, to pull things together, he'd make a judgment. And after he'd made that judgment, the other bishops were not free to express disagreement. They might suddenly decide to flee the chamber or something, but they couldn't vote against it. And this could occasionally lead to awkwardness, but generally speaking, the chairman was sensible. He was aware that, "Look, everyone's got to agree to it, so I mustn't say something controversial." But what constitutes the voice of the council is the fact that its decrees are signed by all the bishops present - by full unanimity.

At minute mark 1:05:45, Price says:

If we consider the essential role played by the emperor in maintaining the unity of the Christian world - well, perhaps I can say one more thing. Sometimes the East couldn't care less whether west agrees with it or not. Sometimes it is more concerned. Rome, I think, is always keen to have orthodoxy and good discipline - by Roman standards - accepted in the east because they want Roman doctrine and Roman discipline to be widely spread, something very similar throughout the church. There was a recognition of that need for unity, and as I say, God's instrument in maintaining this unity throughout the period of the ecumenical councils was the emperor. So if we accept that these councils being held - being agreed to by the church - why, you know, the least of this is God's will. Surely, we have to then recognize that the way God achieved his will was by setting up Christian emperors and endowing them with this worldwide authority.

At minute mark 1:09:00, Price says:

If there hadn't been emperors, there wouldn't have been ecumenical councils.

The Council of Chalcedon

At minute mark 1:47, an interviewer asks, "What exactly is an ecumenical council? That tends to be a pretty common question that is somewhat hard to answer. How would you weigh in on this one?" Price responds:

The standard Catholic answer is that it's a council of all the bishops of the church. Now, well, the trouble with that is if you really push that, has there ever been an ecumenical council? I mean, the recent Catholic councils were just councils of the Catholic church. And if you go back to the early - the famous seven ecumenical councils - from Nicaea I to Nicaea II - did they really represent the whole church at these councils? There was almost no representation from outside the territory of the Roman empire - from Persia or south in Ethiopia. And, I think, you could actually say that the western churches were not represented. 

Now, you may well say, "Yes, of course they were, because there were representatives of the pope at all these councils." But they were there not to represent all the western churches but to represent the pope, who was - until the schism - regarded as the number one bishop in the church. 

So, what made them ecumenical? Well, the answer is that they were imperial councils, summoned by the emperor in Constantinople. Now, from the time of Constantine the great, it was a constant theme that God has made the Roman-Byzantine emperor his representative on earth. And as late as 1400, when grand prince Vasily of Moscow said, "We have a church, but not an emperor," the patriarch Anthony of Constantinople wrote to him, saying, "This is not true. The emperor of Constantinople is the emperor of all Christians. True that most of them don't recognize that, but that is what he is by divine appointment." 

And there's an extraordinary phrase that was used - certainly in the seventh century - which was to say that God is the co-ruler together with the emperor - not the other way around - God is the co-ruler with the emperor, because the emperor is God's representative on earth. Councils - they had to be summoned by the emperor, and their decrees did not of force until the emperor issued them as imperial laws. And that was the decisive thing that made them ecumenical and with full authority. Not only did emperors have this significant role as regards summoning councils and giving authority to their decrees, but we find in many of these councils that the emperors exerted a very heavy influence, one which sometimes dictated to the bishops that which the bishops themselves would not have chosen.

At minute mark 7:50, Price says:

In the second session of the council, the imperial officials chairing the session told the bishops that they had to draw up a new definition of the faith. And the bishops made it quite clear they didn't want to. They thought that to be very controversial. Much better just to approve a few sound, orthodox documents, and you then celebrate it. But no, they were told they must produce a new definition. They resisted this, but the officials didn't listen to them and gave them that order. 

Then, at the at the fifth session, when the draft definition was produced - and it was one the bishops were happy with, except for the Roman representatives, who didn't quite like it - the officials told the bishops they had to change the definition to satisfy the Romans. The great majority of bishops strongly objected to this. The emperor was appealed to. There was a delay of an hour or two, it must have been in the meeting. And the emperor replied that the bishops must go ahead and demand the definition. If not, he even threatened to transfer the council to Rome itself. 

Now, this pattern of imperial dictate, you might say, continues in later councils Constantinople I, Constantinople III. And, again, this is for us seems strange. But we have to go back put ourselves in the mentality of the Byzantine world. What is striking, though, remains the way in which the acts are so open about this degree of imperial dictation. And it's not as if the imperial officials were embarrassed by this, that they had something to cover up. No, they were even in the acts as they were published - which was not a full verbatim record, selective record. They wanted to make clear that the success of the council owed just as much to the emperor as to the bishops.

At minute mark 10:35, Price says:

The misfortune with the tome of Leo was that he didn't write it as a document to be read out at this council. He wrote it as a response to the synod of Constantinople of 448 that had condemned Eutyches, and he misunderstood the acts of that synod as convicting Eutyches for not believing that Christ had a real, human nature. So the whole of the tome is concentrating on: Christ has a real human nature. And, therefore, well, it doesn't, in a sense, bother to attack the opposite extreme, the Nestorian position, because that he wasn't then the issue. 

The result is that for an easterner very much conscious of the need to embrace the positive side of Cyril, it read as if it was really rather repeating some points that Nestorius had made. And Leo - I think he recognized the mistake, and later, he issued another document which we call his second tome, which is a much more balanced statement. But still, what was read out and formally approved at Chalcedon was the tome of Leo. 

Now, what was particularly misunderstood there was the famous sentence, you remember, of course, I'd let us read it to you: "each form - by which means each nature of Christ, the divine and the human - performs what is proper to it in communion with the other." Now, that was understood by many in the eastern speaking as if the two natures were each a personal, acting subject, which would be very Nestorian. But, in fact, he was simply repeating a standard view of philosophers that any concrete, existing being must have effects in the real world. That's what he meant here by, "each nature performs or operates what is proper to it." It has effects - it does things - otherwise, it wouldn't be real. 

But, in fact, in the rest of the tome, it does in a number of places make quite Cyrillian-like statements, expressing the fact that it is the divine Christ in his Godhead who is the ultimate subject of all we say about Christ and his words and actions on earth. If I may just quote you a sentence or two: "the impassable God did not disdain being a passable man, nor the immortal one to submit to the laws of death." And he goes on to assert that the one who was crucified and buried was the only begotten Son of God. 

So he, in fact, is clear, if you take the whole document, that the ultimate subject in Christ is always the divine Word. And that, of course, was the great main theme of Cyril of Alexandra himself: that even the human actions and sufferings are to be attributed back to the divine Word as the ultimate, personal subject.    

At minute mark 16:59, Price says:

In this letter, Ibas is very strongly criticizing Cyril and accuses him of heresy. So this letter, when it appeared, read out at Chalcedon, was a great embarrassment. What could they do about it? Well, the bishops were asked - well, not specifically about the letter, but what to do in conclusion about Ibas. 

It started off sadly by the one of the Roman delegates saying that Ibas is a sound man and his letter shows that. Well, what for the rest of the bishops to do? Well, all the other bishops simply ignored it, apart from the bishop of Antioch who was sucking up to Rome. And so it was ignored, and Ibas himself excused - tries to excuse - himself by saying that, "Well, that's what I thought before Antioch and Alexandria came together with the formula of reunion. After that, I didn't consider him a heretic." But still, it was an embarrassment that the letter was read out and that Ibas was not made there and then to withdraw it. I mean he excused himself saying, "Well, I changed my view later." But he could have been pushed more strongly to withdraw that letter. So this was later seen as a great embarrassment. 

And so what did they do at the second council of Constantinople in 553? Well, they produce a very contrived argument that the very fact that Ibas wasn't made to withdraw it is because everybody knew it was a forgery - that he hadn't written it - which was quite strange and unconvincing. So yes, the letter of Ibas is an embarrassment. 

But you can't say that Chalcedon expressed any approval of it. In fact, before they reinstated Ibas, they made him anathematize Nestorius. 

At minute mark 21:35, Price says:

I think I have to say, I don't think that the Chalcedonian definition did an entirely satisfactory job. Now, it's very striking. The bishops are at Chalcedon. They were quite unanimous - virtually, almost - that Cyril you know was a great theologian and we are loyal to Cyril. Huge emphasis on that. But you have to ask, how much of Cyril did they actually digest?

At minute mark 25:33, Price says:

At Chalcedon, although the bishops were clear that Cyril had been a great leader - that is was he who had secured the condemnation of Nestorius and put Christology on the right path - there was still reluctance to accept that the divine Word is the one who suffered on the cross. And so they recoiled from that, and Cyril's third letter to Nestorius was not read out at the council. At one stage, one of the bishops wanted it to be read out and was silenced. So, you see, that was unfortunate. That's the thing that led the complete, hundred percent Cyrillians to say that Chalcedon is not as orthodox as it claims to be. 

This, of course, was righted in the second council of Constantinople in 553, which is my favorite, actually, of the early councils. I think under the very firm direction from the emperor Justinian - who was himself a notable theologian - there, they they do define that, for example, our Lord Jesus Christ crucified in the flesh is true God and one of the holy Trinity. It is a great shame that that by then it was too late to reckon to win back the non-Chalcedonians. They had been embittered by the fact that Justinian had persecuted them, and instead of saying, "Hurray, the Chalcedonians are now in agreement with us," they said, "the Chalcedonians are now admitting that Chalcedon was heretical." So, alas, that was a great opportunity missed. 

So, I think, yes. For us, Chalcedon is foundational in Christology. But, you know, we do need, I think, to admit that there were the bishops didn't want to produce a new definition. They felt it was premature. In a sense, they were right. There needs to be further debate and writing and discussion on this before the full mystery of the incarnation could be expressed and unanimously affirmed.

At minute mark 28:13, an interviewer asks, "Did the council of Chalcedon - did it judge the tome of Leo as if it had the authority to overrule it? Did that ever ever occur?" Price responds:

No, I mean, there was the session when the bishops were asked about the tome of Leo, and they all affirmed it without any criticism. But, because the bishops rather hoped that - they were ready to you know give blanket approval to the tome of Leo. This they still didn't really want a definition, and they hoped that if they all said, "Yippee, we accept the tome of Leo," that would remove the need for a definition. So they didn't they didn't sort of probe it closely. But as I say, I think impartial reading of the tome of Leo will recognize that it essentially agrees with Cyril. As I say, it's unfortunate it was so directed essentially against Eutyches - so it didn't say enough against Nestorius - but still, a fair reading of it does show that I think his Christology and that of Cyril were essentially coincided.

At minute mark 28:13, an interviewer asks, "What is the message that you would say is the real heart of the issue, that you wish people would take away from that council? And if there is maybe something else that you maybe didn't put in the book that you wish you would have - anything you may have in your mind in terms of the council?" Price responds: 

I think that I would say that Chalcedon needs to be read together with the later councils of Constantinople II and Constantinople III which, in many ways, filled some some some some holes in Chalcedon, the most important, I say, being of the shying away from Theopaschite statements - that the one who died on the cross - the ultimate subject there - is God the Word. That is essential to add. Of course, Constantinople III proceeded to consider the operations and acts of will in Christ. And that again fills out what was adumbrated in Chalcedon. 

I think the Chalcedonian definition taken in isolation is open to many different readings. One trouble is, in fact, if you said, "Is the Chalcedon definition true?" if I was being persnickety, I would say, "Well, it uses these terms 'person' and 'hypostasis' - 'nature' - but it doesn't define them. And they were at that time still used in quite a wide variety of ways. And that means a certain lack of definition in what is being asserted. And the logic of these terms and their range of meaning is much explored later by Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus and others. So those later developments by Byzantine theology need to be added in.

At minute mark 35:56, Price says:

I remember hearing about a meeting, a ecumenical meeting, between high representatives of the Vatican and representatives of the ecumenical patriarch held in Cyprus, and then cardinal Ratzinger proposed that they should agree to consider what was the role of the pope in the church in the first millennium. Well, the fact is, already in the time of Leo, popes are making claims which by eastern standards are simply exaggerated.

At minute mark 38:39, Price says:

The councils and, indeed, of most often the church fathers did not see their work in that way. They were clear that the great fathers of the fourth century knew the truth and that truth simply had to be maintained and protected by some new formulas and definitions which were made necessary by new heresies. But what you were doing was simply maintaining an original, God-given static, you might say, orthodoxy. Now, in many respects of the church's life - it's pastoral activity, all sorts of things - you can say that people, at the time, they got it wrong. We can say that things were happening differently. 

But when it's intellectual history, can you really say that church fathers, whose great aim was to maintain and uphold the tradition - that isn't what they were doing? One needs to have a sense that all these fathers share a sense of the mystery of Christ is something that is deeply experienced and is static, and through presence of the Holy Spirit, does not change within the church. While there may be a variation - verbal formulas get developed to exclude error, new errors mean that formulas have to be expanded or extended - but the sense that the fathers had that they were simply preserving a God-given deposit, that, I think, is important. And that is perhaps truth in conciliar fundamentalism. It's a matter of keeping to the truth that had been already expressed in earlier councils. 

At minute mark 40:52, an interviewer states, "the whole debate over the letter of Ibas shows that there was a lot of people thinking that every last bit of the council is authored by the Holy Spirit." Price responds: 

You're right about that. I was using that - I've talked of conciliar fundamentalism. Yes, I was referring to the fact in the sixth century, some westerners were appealing to, "The whole of everything in Chalcedon is true and inspired" and all the rest of it. I've been saying that even the definition of Chalcedon is not perfect, really. There's important things it doesn't say.

At minute mark 44:01, Price says:

They don't want to include anything that could be used as ammunition by people who didn't like the definition as finally produced. So, in fact, they don't include the draft definition. So this element of selectivity is a significant part in the acts. So that's one element that means that people didn't have in front of them a full record.

At minute mark 51:31, Price says:

Constantinople, after espousing, to some extent, monotheletism and monoenergism - teaching of one will, one operation in Christ - which was not heretical (they meant a joint operation, human and divine, and joint volition, the divine and human wills always acting together, there wasn't the conflict between them). But still, in doing this, they were certainly trying to find reunion with the non-Chalcedonians. 

But Constantine IV decided that now, with the loss of Syria and Egypt, the key thing was a close alliance with Rome. And, for this purpose, it was necessary for Constantinople to adopt the Roman teaching of two operations, two wills in Christ. Now, of course, this doctrine came from the East. It was Maximus the Confessor who would really develop them. It was Maximus the Confessor who had gone to Rome and persuaded the Roman church that this was a matter of fundamental importance and orthodoxy, leading to the Lateran Synod of 649 - of which I've also published a translation. 

And the emperor Constantine IV effectively decided that the best solution for all these problems in church and state was for the eastern - the Byzantine - church to adopt this Roman teaching. They weren't ready, and Maximus the Confessor was in disgrace, because he was regarded as having been treasonable. And Constantine IV got the bishops together, and he forced them to adopt the Roman line in a very extraordinary manner, because he himself in person chaired all the early sessions of that council - which was unheard of beforehand. 

And, also, one thing that my work discovered is that the acts of the first four months of the council are fundamentally false. We've got a contemporary record of those months in the Liber Pontificalis: the Roman legates going back to Rome provided an account. That account is superior to that in the acts. It's more coherent, it makes better sense, the sequence is right. But the very dates of the meetings - the numbers of them - in the Roman account is different from that in the eastern one. And the eastern record of those early sessions is - as other oddities - is exceedingly brief. It says nothing about the stance adopted by the patriarch. 

It looks as if the patriarch Constantinople was, for several months, resistant to this pressure to adopt the Roman position and then finally yielded to imperial pressure. And the acts are concerned to disguise this. Now, the teaching then wasn't very well expressed in Constantinople III, because they hadn't yet read Maximus. But once Maximus then was adopted in Constantinople and the those decrees on two operations and two wills were now read in the light of his theology, this represented - well, I said, a little careful using language of development - but certainly a considerable advance in the understanding of how Christ's operated. This derives very much from Greek thought, 

But again, it's necessary to understand the councils - to see the political element that comes in which, in the short term, quite often is the bishops in Constantinople having their their arms twisted for reasons in which there is a political element. Now, this doesn't stop the fact that their decrees were divinely inspired - divine providence acts through all sorts of ways, but on the human side, one needs to be aware that this political element was there repeatedly.

At minute mark 56:16, an interviewer asks, "What role, if any, did papal infallibility and papal supremacy play at Chalcedon?" Price responds:

Well, the easterners didn't believe in it. They recognized the pope was the senior bishop in the church. He had - must - be listened to with respect. There was a general agreement that Ephesus II had been - there was a sense of guilt over Ephesus II, that it had been a mistake to align so strongly with the Alexandrian position, to depose such a lot of Syrian bishops, to break communion with Rome. This had gone too far. So they did believe in - whether possible - acting, in having good relations with Rome and cooperating with Rome. 

But, of course, this didn't mean that they thought the Roman - any - notion of papal infallibility, nor, why was it important for Byzantium that Rome accepted the decrees of councils? Now, it wasn't, I think, because they thought that to be a proper ecumenical decree it must be accepted by the pope, otherwise its status is dubious. I don't think they thought that. Because for them, the key thing is the emperor. The emperor calls the council, the emperor at the end of it issues the conciliar decrees as imperial law, and the emperor is regarded as the one who's appointed by God as the guardian of the church: co-ruling with God, you see it use this extraordinary expression. 

Why, then, was it important for them that Rome was in agreement? Well, partly because if the decrees would be actually accepted and circulate in the west, they needed to be approved by Rome. But the other thing is, I hope, that because of a general sense in the east that "we want the pope to be on our side." It certainly helped if Constantinople could say to people didn't really like Chalcedon, "Look, this has the support of the pope." Otherwise, they might say, "Ah, even the pope is being a bit hesitant about approving it."

At minute 58:53, an interviewer asks, "Why did the bishops in Chalcedon feel they needed to judge Theodora if Leo had already reinstated him?" Price responds:

Well, they didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction in the eastern provinces. So Leo's reinstating, for them, was not decisive. A decision has to be made in the east. Theodoret's position at the council is a very interesting one. When the discussion was raised about Leo's tome and some bishops expressed some reservation about it, Theodore quoted bits of Cyril that agreed with Leo. Theodoret did not admire Cyril and his legacy, but he realized, in the context of the council, it is Cyril who's the person who was recognized as having authority. 

And then when it came to his - yes, they got rid of the decisions made at Ephesus, but then what about the bishops had be deposed at Ephesus? They felt they should say something. So Ibas gets reinstated, and Theodoret too. Theodoret appeared in the council with a statement he wanted to make - "They know they've got to reinstate me, this is my opportunity to make some doctrinal points." The bishops refused to listen to it, and they insisted when they reinstated him, that he had to anathematize Nestorius which Theodoras avoided doing right up all the years up till then.

At minute mark 1:01:14, Price says:

As I've said already, I think we need to say - we Chalcedonians - we've got to agree that there were things that Chalcedon did not make clear. The terminology was still too vague. It failed to express directly that the divine Christ is the subject of all the human acts and experiences. So we need to go on to Constantinople II. 

And then, I think, in dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox - you may know more, I'm not sure about recent stages in this dialogue - I can't believe that the Oriental Orthodox are still accusing the Byzantine Orthodox of heresy. But I don't think we can say, "Now, look, you've got a read Chalcedon in the light - it's quite true some issues got nothing wrong. but some issues they hadn't really yet obtained clarity on, so you have to look to some later councils. Can't you accept them?" Well, you can't really expect the Oriental Orthodox to say, "Oh, well now you've explained Chalcedon in a more acceptable way. We're ready to accept it." Because, after all, they only exist as a distinct body because they rejected Chalcedon. You really can't expect them to now say, "Well, perhaps we got it wrong. Chalcedon is, yes - properly understood, we accept, yes." No, you really couldn't expect them to renege on their own history in that way.

At minute mark 1:08:48, an interviewer asks, "Could that be an instance where the East recognized some sort of jurisdiction of Rome in the east; therefore, couldn't Chalcedon's reinstatement of Theodoret be one of confirming rather than establishing anew?" Price responds:

But in that session, when they decided to reinstate Theodoret, they do not refer to the papal decision as having forced their hand. In fact, I can't remember them actually referring to it. Now, naturally Theodoret he appeals to Rome, not because he thinks that Constantinople will yield to - accept - Roman jurisdiction, but rather that he recognizes that (particularly with the new emperor) Constantinople is very keen to restore good relations with Rome.

The Second Council of Nicaea

At minute mark 2:36, an interviewer requests, "Perhaps go over, if you don't mind, the evidence in the patristic era that would say, 'Okay, you can use images or icons more than just for catechetical purposes but for actual liturgical purposes to venerate the person that they image.'" Price responds:

The council was very concerned to restore the authentic Christian tradition, and so it worked not by theological debate, but by collecting a large number of passages - citations from earlier Christian literature. And they looked for what they could find - in what I like to call the golden age of the church fathers - between the first council of Nicaea and Chalcedon. And they didn't find a great deal. They found quite a fair number of texts that showed that the great majority of the fathers of the church saw nothing wrong in religious images, but they didn't actually find any authentic texts of this period that advocated venerating images. 

Actually, one text they didn't know, because it's a western text - saint Augustine, after all (very sound, sober, western theologian) - he, in his commentary on the Psalms, makes one very apposite remark. And I quote it to you, "Who adores or prays looking at an image without being moved to think that he is heard by it, and to hope that he will be granted by it what he desires?" That, I think, probably expresses of a general feeling in the Christian world. People wanted to pray to a saint. They'd go into the church, they'd kneel before their image, and they would instinctively and naturally - without thinking about the theology - pray to the image and think of the saint as being with or even in the image. 

So I think that was very natural, but the Greek fathers didn't really take up on that. They must have known people went to churches, prayed in front of images. But it wasn't yet a subject of theological debate, and as you said, when they felt a need to justify images, they referred to them above all as catechetical aids.

At minute mark 5:10, an interviewer asks, "you mentioned there the use of some spurious texts. Do you think that this maybe casts doubt on the authority - or credibility, I should say - of the second council of Nicaea, and were all of their historical sources spurious?" Price responds:

Well, there's been a big debate on that. One text they use that is certainly spurious is the letter attributed to Basil the great expressing very direct ideas of venerating images - not in his style, and not to be found in any of the manuscripts containing, you know, the quantity of letters by Basil. It's only found in these later iconophile sources. That is certainly a forgery, but other but otherwise, there aren't forgeries from that period.

At minute mark 10:08, an interviewer asks, "So what do you think about the theory that at the council,  the Greeks decided to say, 'We need to delete the descriptions of papal power in the first letter of Hadrian to the emperors'?" Price responds:

Yes, they weakened the passages. They didn't entirely remove them. They they softened the passages in the papal letter, the emphasis on supreme papal authority. But then, above all, they removed a number of demands that the pope had made early on in the iconoclast controversy. Byzantium had punished Rome by confiscating its estates in southern Italy and Sicily and by transferring most of the Balkans from its traditional being under Roman jurisdiction to the authority of Constantinople. And those passages are all absent in the Greek version of the letter. 

Now, it used to be supposed that this suppression was carried out at Nicaea II in 787. However, the great German editor of the acts of Nicaea II, Eric Lamberts, has shown quite convincingly that these passages were only removed from the Greek edition of the acts by Photius in the late 860s, when, of course, he was in conflict with Rome. And, of course, he, at that date - particularly, the council of 879-880 - really rewrote the papal letters that was sent to that council, suppressing a whole lot of papal comments. And the view of Dvornik, actually, writing on this, is that the Roman delegates accepted - at that point - that deletion, because they were aware that what the pope was demanding simply would be counterproductive. Well, but interestingly, back in 787, it is, I say, clear that, in fact, the Greek text did include these these passages - very unacceptable to Constantinople. 

At minute mark 17:29, Price says:

The other text which was quoted from the fourth century are directly hostile to images - were were attacked by Epiphanius of Salamis, the late fourth century great heresy hunter. And the council responded by saying, "Oh, these letters are forgeries." But they themselves quote a passage in one of these letters in which Epiphanius is deriding images where he then writes, "I have often said to my fellow celebrants that the images ought to be removed. But I've not been accepted by them, nor are they ready to listen to me, even briefly."

Well, that clearly isn't an iconoclast forgery, that statement. There's Epiphanius telling us that he was his voice was very much a minority one.

At minute mark 18:26, an interviewer states, "We've come across a lot of questions over the years as to what the evidence is of the fathers of the church doing these things, you know, venerating images of Christ and the saints. And I think that we are left really to trust whether the golden age fathers and the fathers thereafter were truly representative of the the apostolic tradition, because otherwise there doesn't seem to be a lot of documentary evidence that the apostles and their immediate successors did this." Price responds: 

I think the answer is that we have to accept a view of development in the church - in doctrine, in devotions, in external practices - and the task of the historian of doctrine is to show that this development was a true development and not just a falling away from the authentic apostolic message. The fathers didn't have that sense of a development of tradition, but that that is the way in which we need to make sense of these developments in the church.

At minute mark 23:12, Price says:

Remember now the debate in the 8th century is very primarily about images of Christ. Now, as I said, this may seem rather too tightly focused because in practice devotion to images of the saints was extremely important for people. But the reason of this concentration was that the iconoclasts wanted to argue that the veneration of images was idolatrous, and you couldn't really say that the veneration of images of saints was idolatrous, because people didn't regard the saints as being Gods. And so they concentrated on the images of Christ and said these are images which people are worshiping, as if they were worshiping God and all they are is painted images. 

And in response, the iconophiles again concentrated on images of Christ. So it was rather a narrowing - it didn't cover the whole sphere of religious images. And here, of course, the point they made is what makes it possible to have images of God was that Christ is God and he became man, and you can represent his body. Now, the iconoclasts responded, "But look, how is that - that's a picture of a body - how can that be a proper representation of Christ? It must either be saying that his divine nature's turned into a human body (which is clearly nonsense and blasphemous) or you're separating his humanity from his Godhead." 

And at the council, refutation of the iconoclast condemnation of images - of the early iconoclast council 754, probably written by saint Tarasios - makes the very good point that any representation, even as an ordinary human being, can't represent his totality. People were quite used to the idea that you venerated images of the emperor and his family. Well, and that's because although all the image represents is the appearance of the emperor's body, everybody understands that in venerating - showing respect to - such an image, you are showing respect to the totality of the person who is represented, even though the representation itself could only be partial. 

And there's a very interesting argument, again - it's the most theologically rich part of the acts of Nicaea II. Most of the actual debate was simply piling up earlier patristic texts and saying that shows it. But that is this refutation of the Horos or the iconoclastic definition of 754. And this document develops a very interesting argument that when Christ assumes human nature, he does not separate that from his Godhead. His Godhead itself, in the human nature, it makes contact with us. There is a certain sense in which, yes, the divine nature doesn't simply, in some sense, join in humanity, but it expresses itself in a limited human body. And, therefore, that is what we venerate. Not just a manhood that was connected to Christ Godhead, but Christ-God made man.

At minute mark 29:14, Price says:

Certainly, by the time we get to the Christian era, the Jews are very clear and strict. Of course, they do have the synagogue Europas, which is third century - the representation of biblical scenes. So there's not a strict exclusion of all imagery of that kind. But, of course, there is the greatest insistence that God himself cannot be represented. And, of course, this is something that was an important part of the iconophile defense - is that we don't make images of God the Father. And all you'll find in art is something - a hand appearing at one corner of a picture - which represents the presence of God. 

Now, in the Catholic tradition, representing the Father as an old man came in, well, several centuries after all this as as a way - if we could represent the Trinity, you want to represent the Father in some way. And if the Son is represented as a youngish man and you want to bring out the Father and Son are consubstantial, represent the Father as an old man. But I think this is this is of an unfortunate development. I think the sense, in the first thousand years, that God the Father simply cannot be represented, expressed a much more important truth.

At minute mark 31:35, Price says:

The earlier iconoclast council - 754 - did not include representatives either from Rome or the oriental patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria - which didn't worry the Byzantines. They didn't regard the presence of such representatives as being essential for an ecumenical council, because as I said - I was speaking to you, what, a few weeks ago - but for them the key feature of an ecumenical council is that it's summoned by the emperor, who was God's viceroy throughout the earth - rather, the world. 

Certainly, one might expect that Nicaea II would make a huge fuss about how "we have got representatives from Rome." And they produced two representatives who were supposed to represent the three oriental patriarchates. In fact, they were pretty bogus. They didn't bring a letter from their so-called patriarchs. They claimed to be the right-hand men - some assistants of the patriarchs. After the council they did not return to their supposed patriarchates, so they were very dubious. But despite this fact - that the council had contrived these representatives - it was keen to stress it was superior at the council 754. 

The emphasis in claiming authority of their council was only secondarily on that - on the pentarchy being represented. Their whole emphasis was the fact that "we represent the genuine authentic tradition of the church fathers." That, they saw, as absolutely essential. 

At minute mark 37:19, an interviewer asks, "The fact that the emperor would have to call an ecumenical council - that seems to that seems to militate against both the Catholic position and the Orthodox position today, since neither Catholics nor Orthodox believe that the emperor is absolutely essential to call an ecumenical council. Do you think that that may impact both of the Catholic and Orthodox communions?" Price responds: 

Well, of course, as regards the East, in the Byzantine world, the emperor was represented as having this unique relationship with God. He was described as God's co-ruler, and this was part of the whole ideology of Byzantium. And, of course, when there was no longer Byzantine emperor, this was a big sorrow - sad change. And the Orthodox had now to invoke - well, they stress above all - on a properly ecumenical council - it's a council that represents the authentic tradition of the fathers. That was a necessary change the sad historical circumstances. But I don't think that the fact the emperors were given such high position - their calling of these councils is so important - is in anyway discredited by the fact that that the tragic later history of Christendom.

At minute mark 37:19, Price says:

We accord honor to images, but not the true worship, latria, that is reserved for God and the members of the Trinity. But we do the veneration of honor to be paid to images, and that makes a distinction. So you can't say that venerating images is idolatrous. But it goes on quoting for saint Basil the great, "the honor paid to the image passes over to the prototype." Whoever venerates the image venerates in it the hypostasis - person, if you like - of the one who is represented. 

Now, this is making a very different point. Saint Basil was, in fact, talking about Christ as the image of the Father and saying that we worship Christ because the worship we give to him is not separate from our worship of the Father - the two are combined. Now, when this is applied to images - and you think of images of Christ - now, this is making a very valid point, that somebody who prays to an image - he's not thinking of the image as something, you know, "that's a material object to which I should have one reaction quite distinct from the person represented who is a intelligent, spiritual being." No, you venerate the image because it is an image of the person - makes you feel in contact with - think about this holy or divine person. And in the case of Christ, surely, as we worship Christ as truly God, praying to an image of Christ, we worship not so much not the image in itself but Christ in the image. 

And so Theodore the Studite - the most able 9th century defender of images - wrote as follows on this: "Perhaps, someone will object that since worship is veneration, it will follow that an image of Christ should receive the same worship as the holy Trinity. But let him learn that it is not the essence of the image that is venerated, but it is Christ who is venerated in an image of Christ." Well, yes, but surely that precisely is what is happening. A mistake the iconoclast made was to simply take the image separately from how it is used in worship and to say, "What is it?" But what we're really talking about is people going into a church, kneeling, or leaning over, kissing an image of Christ. Take the case we're thinking of and, in doing that, they are worshiping Christ. They're not saying to themselves, "Now, this image is just an image, but I respect it as such, but at the same time I'm venerating the person who is imaged." As they look at the image and through that image, they feel they are in contact with Christ. And, therefore, here we have a justification for worshiping images of Christ: precisely because our worship passes were through the image for Christ Himself. It was a bit of a failure in the debate: the failure to recognize that we're really talking about, not images themselves, but the way in which images - how in which Christians pray through images.

So what you find, therefore, in the definition, is two very different and not quite compatible defenses: one is saying that we don't worship the image because even as an image of Christ we simply revere, richly respect (if that's different from our worship to Christ as divine) and the other, I think, more perceptive argument is that we do indeed we worship Christ in images of Christ precisely because the image takes us beyond itself to the person who is there represented. This is a typical example of the way in which the fathers could develop arguments. They're fighting a war. It's not a situation you spend your time (like an academic) saying what is a coherent and consistent position you use a range of arguments that that are available to you, and you're not so concerned about coherence.

At minute mark 43:21, Price says:

In venerating the image, you're not venerating the image in itself. But you are seeing through the image; the image is a window. It's not a blank wall that blocks you, the image is a window through which you look through and obtain a perception of a saints and of the Godhead itself as it is incarnate in Christ.

At minute mark 45:04, Price says:

It was recognized that ecumenical councils must define doctrine. They had some problems with the first council of Ephesus, the one that condemned Nestorius, which didn't define any matters of doctrine. And so the - well, what should I call - it's almost a fiction developed that the council defined that our blessed lady is mother of God. Which it didn't. There's no such decree. The council actually affirmed she is the mother of God, but not in a definition. Now, by that stage, it was taken for granted even Nestorius accepted the term of calling Mary the mother of God, though he didn't terribly like it. But by the eighth century, it is certainly taking granted the council must define doctrine.

At minute mark 48:57, an interviewer asks, "What do you think of the images in the catacombs discovered with images of Christ and the apostles - are these anomalies or do you think this was widespread?" Price responds:

We haven't got other examples of that early date. I think some some similar stuff has been found in Naples. No, I don't think so, because the Jews themselves were ready to depict biblical scenes. There is certainly a feeling that portrait images or statues are there to invite worship - this was felt to be pagan. This is a prejudice that Christians had took over from Jews. But representing biblical scenes was regarded as quite acceptable.

At minute mark 50:50, an interviewer asks, "Doesn't the blessing of icons and statues detract from the fact that they are venerated by the very virtue of what they represent and not what they are (which the blessing aims at)?" Price responds:

Oh, that's very interesting. Yes, that's a very good point. The fact is, however, that one of the objections made by the iconoclasts to the veneration of images that the images were not blessed. And so they contrast them to the blessed sacrament: the bread and wine that become the body and blood of Christ which, of course, receive of a blessing from the priest. And so they made this objection that icons simply do not have this - cannot enjoy the status. 

This has led some people to represent the debate as a dispute between those who want there to be a tight control of the sacred under the control of the state and the state around church, and a sort of more widely diffused popular devotion. And, in fact, the defenders of the veneration of images did have to fill a need to make a point that venerating images is, of course, splendid, but it mustn't detract from attending the liturgy. It is the worship in church as a member of the church with the clergy, and one's fellow believers. That must remain the central, most important part of Christian devotion. 

At minute mark 51:58, an interviewer asks, "Did the eastern church believe in papal supremacy at the council? Because some are going to say that the papal claims were presented at the seventh ecumenical council." Price responds: 

No one disputed that the pope is the first in honor of all the bishops. But what was not accepted in Constantinople was that he had any authority over them. He could not dictate to them. But first in honor, absolutely. That was absolutely not disputed.

At minute mark 52:35, an interviewer asks, "The council of Frankfurt 794, an iconoclast council - could you briefly comment on that" Price responds: 

Now, I say that the defense in the east of venerating images could point to the fact that the fathers the great fathers of the fourth-fifth centuries had approved of - didn't disapprove of - images. They're quite happy with images being done. It's inspiration to piety and as a catechetical aide. And, therefore, it was quite to argue in the east that iconoclasts were simply not being true to the fathers. 

But the debate in the west was much more difficult, because the Franks, who strongly disapproved of venerating images and condemned the council of Nicaea II, did not condemn having images. So the pope - pope Hadrian - tried to defend the iconophile cause in the west got into difficulties, because, as I said, the fathers of the fourth century express no disapproval of images, but they don't talk about venerating them. And pope Hadrian - he didn't really win the debate against the Franks.

The Council of Constantinople 869

At minute mark 2:12, Price says:

In 858, there's a coup - a political coup - in Constantinople, and the patriarch Ignatius is deposed. And Photius, a very leading member of the lay intelligencia and the government circles was chosen as his successor. Well, pope Nicholas I, saint Nicholas - a very strong figure, rather a terrifying figure, I think - regards this as entirely improper. The deposition of a patriarch for no proper grounds had been communicated to him, and the election of, in his place, a layman. And so he wouldn't accept Photius, and a Roman council in 863 declared Photius deposed and excommunicated. 

Well, in 867 Photius retaliated by having a synod in Constantinople that declared pope Nicholas himself deposed and excommunicated. But in the very same year, just a few months later, the emperor was murdered. A new emperor appears on the throne, and he reverses the position. He has Photius deposed, and he reinstates patriarch Ignatius. So its Byzantine politics caused the sudden swings: to Photius being chosen to replace Ignatius, and now Ignatius being reinstated, Photius pushed out. And then the council was heard in order to deliver formal ecclesiastical judgment against Photius and achieve or celebrate a new reconciliation between Byzantium and Rome, after a schism between them of a particularly shocking kind. 

At minute mark 5:06, the interviewer asks, "This is where it gets a little more confusing because we have multiple councils going on here. So let's talk about 879-880 and, also, how did the acts of this council survive. Can you maybe go into that?" Price responds:

Well, the reason for hopping on immediately 879 - and we'll be going backwards and, obviously, going back to council 869-70 - but simply, at this point, I think I'd like to say something about the survival of the acts. So: 877, patriarch Ignatius dies, and Photius is reappointed restored as patriarch. And the eastern churches - that's the within the Byzantine empire, but also the oriental patriarchates - immediately accepted him and condemned the council of 869-70. Now, how did the pope react? Well, John VIII, this is. More cautious, not as bold a personality as Nicholas I. And he acquiesced in it, because he desperately needed Byzantine help against the Saracens, Muslims who were invading us - not only Sicily, also southern Italy. And, in fact, the imperial fleet and army was extremely successful pushing them back in the same year that the council is actually, finally held. So, they feel that in order to undo the work of this earlier council with ecumenical claims, they'll need a new council. And that was held, attended by papal legates. This council, yes, it formally accepted Photius - well, rather, Photius has already been fully accepted in the east, and the Roman legates, arrived in 879, said "Now, because of the Roman condemnation of Photius" - they didn't talk so much about the council of 869-70 - "because the popes have condemned him, he remains condemned, so the point of this council is to retract that condemnation." To which the easterners replied, "Rubbish! We don't accept that condemnation. We regarded Photius as patriarch for ages." So that was the slightly tense situation. Anyhow, so, yes, that council met and condemned the council of 869-70 just 10 years after it had been held.

At minute mark 11:24, Price says:

The Roman legates at the council of 879-80, went together with a, well, it's a sort of general terms, a sort of condemnation of the - rejection of the - decisions of the previous council. And the fact is that, of course, the 869-70 council - now, this is a curious fact. When the legates, Roman legates, in 870 got back to Rome, well, they're pretty annoyed at Byzantine not having protected them against pirates. But there was another, more substantial reason why Rome was feeling out of sorts with Byzantium, and that is over Bulgaria. I mean, this is something that wasn't discussed at the council proper, though there were some meetings at the end involving people on both sides. 

If the question was that Bulgaria had just adopted the Christian religion, should it be under Rome or Constantinople? And both Roman and Constantinople laid claim to it. And because Constantinople continued to send Greek bishops there and and didn't recognize Roman jurisdiction there, Rome never in fact formally approved the decrees of 870. It was only centuries later, which I shall talk about later on, I think, that Rome dug up this - you know, dusted its copy - and started describing it as the eighth ecumenical council.

At minute mark 14:12, Price says:

Rome did not at any stage give its approval to the council. Of course, it approved the council's chief work of deposing (condemning) Photius, but it wasn't ready to - out of resentment towards Byzantium - wasn't ready to give the council its formal approbation. 

At minute mark 17:22, the interviewer asks, "It seems like there there weren't many bishops who really attended 869. It was poorly attended, so how can we talk about this being ecumenical?" Price responds:

Well, this is pretty startling. Now, an ecumenical council is meant to be universal. Well, what sort of numbers do you expect in the early church? Chalcedon would later claim - what was it - 630 or something bishops? But that included a lot of names simply handed in by the bishops towards the end of the council. But we can say about 370. The second council of Nicaea had 340 bishops attending. The council of 879-80 - the later pro-Prussian council - has 380. 

Well, how many attended our council this evening? Well, the first session - you scarcely believe this - apart from the patriarchal representatives, there were 12 bishops! Well, as time passed, more joined them. At the eighth - the most important - session of the council, it really completed its work. They were up to 37. Now, the final session which was sometime afterwards, it went up to 103, but this is terribly unimpressive. 

Now, why did so bishops attend? I think one can deduce the deposition of Photius was not popular, but my collaborator thought that the chief reason simply was rather the humiliation of a patriarch of Constantinople being condemned at a council and defrocked-  was simply a humiliation that the Byzantine church was extremely reluctant to accept. Well, if the emperor wanted to push out Photius and put in Ignatius, they would have gone along with that. But a formal, conciliar condemnation was clearly massively unpopular. 

That raised the question: if numbers are so few, how can it be considered ecumenical? Well, yes, I mean it is a bit tricky. But what are the criteria - what makes a council ecumenical? I mean, this we have to repeat, particularly the context of Catholics. Because we understand economical mean the representatives from the whole church. Well, they never were, at the early ecumenical councils, because over the overwhelming majority of bishops present were bishops from within the Byzantine empire. Very rarely do you have bishops from other parts of the east or south of the empire. Now, there are the papal legates but they're not there in order to represent the western church as a distinct geographical part of the church. They're there because the pope is accepted by everybody is the number one bishop, so he must be represented. 

So, what makes these councils ecumenical? Well, the answer is because they are summoned by the emperor, and it is the emperor who confirms their decrees and publishes them as imperial law. And the ideology of the Byzantine empire - and Rome had been crowning some emperors in the west - it did not going to go against this notion that the emperor is a God-created, Christian rule over the over the world, and the emperor of Constantinople has worldwide authority. In documents of the council of 680-81, you'll even find God described as the co-ruler with the Byzantine emperor! And as late as 1400, the Byzantine empire was reduced to Constantinople itself and some certain small parts of Greece. When the tzar in Moscow declared that we have our church but not an empire the patriarch of Constantinople wrote, "Nonsense, of course we have an emperor. He may not be widely recognized, but he has God given authority over all Christians." 

But admittedly, now, this council of 869-70 - they buttressed that by stressing something that, I mean - it was an old idea, but it now receives a unique emphasis addressing the pentarchy, who were present at the council - the patriarch of Constantinople and legates from Rome and the three oriental patriarchates (Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria). And huge stress - this is repeatedly mentioned. Well, other councils, they like having representatives of the pentarchy. But it wasn't regarded even as essential. I mean the iconoclast council 754 didn't have any papal or oriental representatives, and that didn't worry people at the time. I mean later, of course, that council is rejected as heretical, but at the time, that was not felt an embarrassment. So it's a bit artificial - suddenly 669-70, to say, "Wonderful! The pentarchy - all five are in agreement." But that they used to bolster up the chief consideration, which was that this is an imperial council.

At minute mark 23:18, the interviewer asks, "It seems like the second council of Nicaea talks about the pentarchy as a standard for an ecumenical council. Could you briefly comment on that - does it present the pentarchy as a standard, or is it just kind of a misreading?" Price responds: 

It does. I mean, I can't say it offers a sort of general doctrine about the pentarchy, but it does repeatedly stress that there are the representatives of the five chief jurisdictions in the Christian church. And this is seen as, well, manifested. This is - it's not an unreasonable claim that they're ecumenistic. The way they still feel, it doesn't quite make up for a council, well, only attended between - most sessions between - 12 and 40 bishops. I mean, this is seems a bit a bit inadequate, but they they leap, grab onto the idea of the pentarchy in order to try and bolster up - they'll stir up - the claims.

At minute mark 26:44, Price says:

The council itself was absolutely dominated by the imperial officials representing the emperor - he himself only made one short appearance - and the Roman legates acting together. In fact, Ignatius is now the recently restored patriarch of Constantinople - though he's constantly referred to with honor, actually spoke very little. He was a bit kept to the side. So the council is in a way a triumph for Rome. 

And yet, the Roman legates were quite unhappy about several features of the council. They were shocked at the very first session, when they were asked to provide proof of their accreditation. "Were they real genuine and legates?" And they were appalled. They said, "No Roman legislative council has ever been asked to provide documentation of that kind." 

Now, more serious was the - later on in the council, the fourth session - when the imperial officials present demanded that Photius and the bishops who had supported him be given the opportunity to defend themselves. The Roman legates protested, "But they've already been condemned at the Roman synod of 863, and that's by the pope above all. And this judgment has been final and complete." It was an insult to the Roman see to say that a new trial was necessary. They agreed to allow Photius to appear before the council, but simply so that he would hear the Roman verdict read out to him. 

Well, the council proceeded, however, to carry out of a trial of Photius, and it concluded, fine - well the eighth session, and then formalized at the tenth session. Now, that formalization - the tenth session - they did say that "we are affirming and confirming the Roman verdict." But it doesn't change the fact that the church council judged itself competent to hear an appeal against a Roman sentence, with the implication that a ecumenical council was a higher court of judgment than the papacy or Roman council. And that was a claim which, since the time of Leo the Great, Rome had never accepted.

At minute mark 31:49, Price says:

I said already that Rome, in 870, did not formally approve the decisions of the council, and thereafter, it was forgotten, not surprisingly, until the famous investiture controversy of 11th to 12th centuries. Now, this is a bit of medieval church history most people know about: that the dispute was that when the bishop is appointed - now he holds lands, he has jurisdiction - and is at that point who is under the local ruler. Now, is he to be infested with his full episcopal authority by the local ruler or by a church body? Well, principally by the pope himself. And later too, this question, "Who actually chooses the bishop?" And what Rome wanted was, a bishop should make up both a fidelity to the ruler - as regards his lands, his sort of secular power - but in church matters he should remain fully autonomous. 

And now, it was the great Gregory VII, the great great champion of the church line on this, in about 1080, who - somebody must have - well perhaps he was learning, I don't know but somebody - certainly, he came across the acts of this council. And it was he who was the first person to call it the eighth ecumenical council. Now, this is because of the canons of the council. Now, sadly, because the council was so soon rejected in Byzantium, its canons never enter the eastern canonical tradition. But actually, I think, they are a rather impressive set of canons. I think they're better drawn up than those of Nicaea II or many of the Quinisext canons. But there it was - they never became part of the eastern tradition. 

But they were dug up, and, particularly, two canons in particular were singled out, now cited by Rome. One canon that says, "The elections of bishops by the suffrage and power of secular authority are no way to be accepted." This is because, you see - in fact, this is true of Ignatius, the first choice of Ignatius to be patriarch. Certainly true of when he was replaced by Photius. This is by imperial dictate. So this canon, you see, rules it out. 

And then there's another canon, 22: "The holy ecumenical council defines, lays down, proclaims that law, the promotion and consecration of bishops, takes place through an election and decision by the college of bishops, that no lay official or magnet should interfere with the election and promotion of a patriarch, metropolitan, or any bishop." Now, of course, that's interesting, because it extends - it's not just talking about the patriarch, it's talking about metropolitan bishops in charge of provinces, and diocese bishops. And clearly, it was quite common experience that that lay people would - lay magnets would - effectively dominate the election. So this clearly was already causing unease in Byzantium, though the fact that the emperor essentially chose the patriarch was a very well established tradition. But it's because of those two canons, I think, that Gregory VII wheeled out our council again, called it the eighth economical council, and, of course, it's enjoyed that status ever since.

At minute mark 36:09, the interviewer asks, "Did Photius die in the peace of the church, or was 869 just kind of the final way in the eyes of Rome that he was seen?" Price responds:

Well, I mean, obviously, John VIII - the council 879-80 - from their first appearance, the Roman legates treated Photius as patriarch. Now, they claimed that it was the Rome's decision to recognize him as patriarch that restored him - that he was, therefore, restored by the Rome's voice in 879 - to which the easterners of that council 879-80 said, "But, no, we've accepted him for years." they were not ready to recognize that Rome's voice made any change.

At minute mark 38:14, the interviewer asks, "I have one more question before I ask you for some concluding remarks. It's something that I just thought of as we were having this discussion here, and it's in reference to, I believe, canon 21 of 869. If I can ask a specific question about it, it has something very curious where it says, at the end of the canon, 'If, then, any ruler or second secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope or the apostolic see or any of the other patriarchs, let them be' - and then, here's the kicker, 'furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy Roman church, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution. It must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.' Well, my question here is, does this concede that well the pope can be judged but just not rashly?" Price responds:

Well, I know, you're right. I think this is a very striking. Because, you see, that this, of course, is a reference to the Photian council of 867 not long before that had condemned and declared the great pope Nicholas deposed and excommunicated. Of course, what Rome would have liked would be a canon that said, "The Roman pope cannot be condemned at, well, either by anybody or he certainly can't be condemned by an eastern council." But clearly the bishops and the government in Constantinople were not ready to concede that. So what they've put together is this canon - that is, he's not to be judged rashly - it's effectively resisting an adoption of the Roman position that nobody can sit in judgment on the pope, unless possibly a Roman council.

At minute mark 40:23, the interviewer asks, "It sure does seem that way. So I've heard - and correct me if I'm wrong - but I've heard that the context or the understanding of that was that the pope could be judged by a council, but only a council in communion with a later pope judging a previous pope. Is that correct, or is that inaccurate?" Price responds:

Well there's nothing of that in that canon.

At minute mark 42:34, Price says:

This council is very much - it's like many of the early economical councils: Chalcedon; Constantinople III and defining two wills and two operations in Christ; Nicaea II in defining that images are to be set up in churches and venerated. It's a case where Rome and the Byzantine church, at that point, is in - very much in - agreement. They meet together, and they're very happy to sign together authoritative definition. 

But, at the same time, there is no agreement as to where authority ultimately lies in the church. Now, Rome attends these councils because it would like to see orthodoxy dominating in the east. And the East is glad when Rome goes - is happy to collaborate - because they share interest in common Christian norms and rules and laws. So the sense of two both belonging - even after Rome set up at the western empire of the Franks - the sense that they belong still to this historical entity (the Roman empire, the Roman world) remains very strong. But, at the same time - and generally, ecumenical councils, yes. The two churches are - for a time, at least - are in agreement, in alliance. But where they never achieve a common understanding is over the question of where supreme authority lies in the church. 

I mean, go back to Chalcedon: pope Leo, of course, welcomed - well, after a bit - but he did then very formally support and right round supporting the definition of Chalcedon. But he always insisted his own tome was a document of even greater authority. And, you see, the council of 869-70, the Romans say, "Photius has already been deposed," and the Greeks said, "Well, he hasn't, actually. We've got to depose him before he's properly deposed." So that was a tension at this council: the Greeks wanting to have a formal trial and the Romans saying it's not necessary.

At minute mark 49:03, Price says:

Heretical writings get destroyed, but the writings were all thought - writers attacking, demolishing heretical writings survive. So you work from those, you see. But it's true, our knowledge of the past - we do not have - the documentation is not of a full or impartial record.

At minute mark 57:44, Price says:

Rome does not write right to Constantinople, saying "Marvelous, you're hearing a great ecumenical council, and I would request this, that, and the other. Rome says, "We have spoken, and the task of the council is to - the opportunity of the rest of the church to accept and acknowledge papal teaching." I mean, the same is true at Chalcedon.

At minute mark 1:01:29, the interviewer asks, "Does father Price believe that 879 wasn't fully accepted by Rome?" Price responds:

No. Well, in one way, not fully. I've never - the work of 879-80 was fairly slight. I mean, essentially, it's simply recognizing Photius as patriarch and condemning those in the east who were still denying his authority. And, of course, Rome agreed with that. But Rome had itself spoken on this matter, you see. The legates arrived from Rome at 879 saying, "The matter's been resolved, that the pope accepts Photius, that this is the decisive judgment," you see. So in Roman eyes, the council of 879-80 adds nothing. It represents the East accepting with gratitude the Roman judgment. Of course, the East said, "No, we aren't accepting the Roman judgment, and we're going by our own judgement, and fortunately, Rome has finally got around to agreeing with us." So, no, Rome had no reason to attach a status to that council.

And one that is I just discovered - looking at the acts of 879-80, at all sessions. It starts off with Photius being described as the president of the council. And he is named before the Roman legates. Now, in all earlier councils the only president was the emperor, and when he attended, he presided. He was formally called the president. And when he wasn't present, there was a pecking order for bishops. And the list, you know, councils attended by, and then, of course, the senior bishops who come - legates will come first. But the term president was reserved to the emperor. And then, standard at all these councils: when you have the list of the people who approve the decrees, the person who will come at the top - you have the papal legates. And then you have the patriarch of Constantinople, and then the other patriarchs or legates from abroad. But in this acts of this council, Photius' name always precedes that of the papal legates. Now, you know, so, no, it's not a council that Rome can really look at with much satisfaction.

At minute mark 1:07:13, the interviewer asks, "I wonder if that's evidence against conciliar fundamentalism: the idea that everything - even in the acts - is infallible. I believe that's the term you've used?" Price responds:

Yeah, oh, absolutely, yes, indeed: that they're a record to be used with an awareness that they're rather curious. Is there a bit of a halfway house? I mean, they weren't widely circulated. They are an official record, but yet they are a selective record - propaganda, in that sense. But propaganda is not widely circulated. I've been working at job called conciliar synopsis, which are accounts that go through all the councils. You know, from Nicaea down to Nicaea II, and give you information about everyone. Virtually none of them show knowledge of the conciliar acts that I've been studying. They just were not generally available, were not studied, were not read. So they're rather curious, as some form of document. And you can understand why other councils earlier or later - or, of course, all the local councils - did not issue comparable records.