Anastasius, the bishop of Rome, refers to Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, as "shepherd", "the careful watchman", and "the shipmaster". He refers to how Pope Theophilus "watches over" the church:
"It is felt right that a shepherd should bestow great care and watchfulness upon his flock. In like manner too from his lofty tower the careful watchman keeps a lookout day and night on behalf of the city. So also in the hour of tempest when the sea is dangerous the shipmaster suffers keen anxiety lest the gale and the violence of the waves shall dash his vessel upon the rocks. It is with similar feelings that the reverend and honourable Theophilus our brother and fellow-bishop, ceases not to watch over the things that make for salvation, that God's people in the different churches may not by reading Origen run into awful blasphemies." (Jerome's Letter 95:1)
Can there be much doubt that the bishop of Alexandria is the infallible Vicar of Christ on earth, with jurisdictional primacy over all Christians?
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]St. Athanasius, Arianism, and the Holy See[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"...what we have received from Blessed Peter the Apostle, that I declare to you..."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times](Pope Julius I to the Eusebians, Athanasius Apol 35, c. 340 AD) [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"...to [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times]the head[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times], that is to [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times]the See of Peter the Apostle[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times], the bishops of the Lord shall refer from all provinces..."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times](orthodox Catholic bishops to Pope Julius I, Council of Sardica, c. 343 AD)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times] Edward Giles Documents page 105, In Hilary Frag 2, PL 10:639][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]St. Athanasius Assembles a Council to Address Pope Julius
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]
Athanasius assembled in consequence a great Council at Alexandria of more than eighty Bishops, which addressed to Julius and to all Bishops a lengthy defense. [1] This letter was taken to Rome by the envoys of Athanasius. When their arrival became known to Macarius (the priest who had brought the letter to Eusebius) he left hurriedly in the night. His companions, two deacons, were unable to reply to the statements of the Egyptians, so they demanded a synod, and requested the Pope himself to be judge. [/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Commentary on Pope Julius as Judge (Socrates, Sozomen, others)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]
It is best to give the words of the authorities: (Athanasius, Apol c. Arian 20):[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"The Eusebians (or Eusebius) also wrote to [Pope] Julius, and thinking to frighten us, they asked for a Council to be called, and that Julius himself, if he wished, should be judge."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]
Socrates, (H.E. ii, II):[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"Eusebius having accomplished what he desired, sent an embassy to Julius, Bishop of Rome, calling upon him to be the judge of the charges against Athanasius, and to summon the case to Himself."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]
Sozomen, (H.E. iii, 7):[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"Eusebius...wrote to Julius that he should be judge of what had been decreed at Tyre."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]
Here Sozomen copies Socrates, who has himself misunderstood the passage of Athanasius. This last must be interpreted by another passage of the same Saint. (Hist Arian, ad mon. 9):[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"The priests sent by them also asked for the same thing (viz. a synod) when they saw that they were refuted."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]
So the letter of Pope St. Julius (Ap Athan Apol c. Arian 22):[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"Those who were sent by you Eusebians with letters (I mean thte priest Macarius, and the deacons Martyrius and Hesychius) when they were here, not being able to reply to the priests of Athanasius who had come, but being confuted and convicted in all points, thereupon asked us that a synod might be convoked, and to write to Alexandria to bishop Athanasius and to the Eusebians that the just judgment might be arrived at in the presence of all."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]
From this it is clear that the letter of Eusebius had not asked for a synod or for the Pope as judge. This was only an insincere pretext of the envoys used to avoid an immediate condemnation.[/FONT]
Julius made no objection to this, and at once wrote both to the Bishop of Alexandria and to his accusers summoning them to a synod, the time and place of which they themselves could decide.
Meanwhile the Emperor Constantius had intruded another Bishop at Alexandria, Gregory the Cappadocian, with the greatest violence. Athanasius escaped and obeyed the summons of the Pope, arriving at Rome just after Easter, 399.
[2]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]
Athan Apol c. Arian 20 and Hist. Arian ii; Pope St. Julius (Ap Athan Apol c. Arian 29):[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"For he did not come of himself, but was summoned by letters from us, as we wrote to you."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]
Theodoret, (H.E. ii, 3):[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"Athanasius, knowing their plot, retired, and betook himself to the West. For to the Bishop of Rome (Julius was then the Shepherd of that Church) the Eusebians had sent the false accusations which they had put together against Athanasius. And he, following the laws of the Church, both ordered them to repair to Rome, and also summoned the divine Athanasius to judgment. And he, for his part, started at once on receiving the call; but they who had made up the story did not go to Rome, knowing that it would be easy to see through their falsehood."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]
Sozomen, (iii, 10):[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"Julius learning that it was not safe for Athanasius to remain in Egypt then, sent for him to Rome."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Pope Julius Summons the Eusebians[/FONT]
The accused having presented himself, but his accusers, whose representatives had demanded the Council, not having put in an appearance, Pope St. Julius sent them another summons, fixing the end of the year as the limit of patience. The Eusebians retained the legates until the term was passed and only allowed them to return in the January following (340), bearing a letter from their meeting at Antioch, the tenor of which has been preserved by Sozomen (iii, 8):
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"Having assembled at Antioch, they wrote to Julius an answer elaborately worded and rhetorically composed, full of irony and containing terrible threats. For in their letter they admitted that Rome was always honored as the school of the Apostles and the metropolis of the Faith from the beginning, although the teachers had settled in it from the East. [3] But they did not think they ought to take a secondary place because they had less great and populous Churches, since they were superior in virtue and intention. They reproached Julius with having communicated with Athanasius, and complained that their synod was 'insulted and their contrary decision made null,' and they accused this as unjust and contrary to ecclesiastical law. Having thus reproached Julius and complained of his ill-usage, they promised, if he would accept the deposition of those whom they had deposed and the appointment of those whom they had ordained, to give him peace and communion; but if he withstood their decrees, they would refuse this. For they stated that the earlier Eastern Bishops had made no objection when Novatian was driven out of the Roman Church. But they wrote nothing to Julius concerning their acts contrary to the decisions of the Nicene Council, saying that they had many necessary reasons to give in excuse, but that it was superfluous to make any defense against a vague and general suspicion of wrong-doings." [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]
Socrates merely has:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"They complain with great acerbity to Julius, declaring that he must make no decrees if they wished to expel some from their Churches, for they did not contradict him when (the Romans) drove Novatus from the Church," (ii, 15).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]
Both historians mistakenly place this letter after an imaginary restoration of Athanasius and others to their Sees by the Pope.[/FONT]
Eusebius of Nicomedia seems to have been dead when this letter was written. In the autumn of 340 the Council was at length assembled at Rome, and met in the church of the priest Vito, who had been Papal Legate at Nicaea. Not only Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, and Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, were present, but also many bishops from Thrace, Coelesyria, Phoenicia and Palestine, who had taken refuge in Rome. Besides, deputies came from Alexandria and elsewhere, complaining of the continued acts of violence and barbarity perpetrated in the name of the Eusebian party. Priests from Egypt and Alexandria deplored that many Bishops were prevented from coming, and some, even confessors, were beaten and imprisoned, while the Catholic people were oppressed and persecuted. Bishops had been exiled for not communicating with the Arians. Similar outrages had occurred at Ancyra in Galatia.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Pope Julius Responds to the Eusebians[/FONT]
The council gave peace and communion to Athanasius and Marcellus, the orthodoxy of the latter being warmly upheld by Athanasius and Julius. At the instance of the bishops, the Pope at length replied, in the name of all to the unseemly letter of the Eusebians. His lengthy and important epistle is preserved complete in St. Athanasius apology.
The letter from the Easterns, says Pope St. Julius, was improper and proud, in answer to his own letter, which was full of love; even their apparent flattery was ironical. Out of charity Julius had not published their letter for a long time, until he was forced to give up all hope that any of them would attend the Council. Their studied eloquence was of no value. They ought to have been glad of a synod, even had it not been attended by their own envoys. The Council of Nicaea had set the example of revising the decision of former synods.
"If you say that every Council is unalterable, who is it, pray, who sets Councils at naught? The Arians were expelled by that of Nicaea, and yet they are said to be received by you. They are condemned by all, while Athanasius and Marcellus have many defenders. In fact, Athanasius was not convicted of anything at Tyre, and the acts in the Mareotis were invalid, being draw up by one party only."
The Pope then speaks of affairs at Alexandria, of envoys sent to Rome by the usurping Gregory, and of the intruded bishop Pistus. The Eusebians asserted that the Western condemnation of Novatian, and the Eastern condemnation of Paul of Samosata, had been respected by all, and subject to no revision. Why, then, did they not similarly respect the Council of Nicaea? They had violated that Council also by frequent translations of Bishops from See to See. Bishops, they said, were not measured by the greatness of their cities; why, then, were the Eastern bishops not content with a small city? (This refers, above all, to Eusebius, who from being bishop of Berytus had changed to the city of Nicomedia, where the Court frequently was
[4], and then had usurped the see of Constantinople, newly-founded capital.)
continued on the next post