Politics Is Traditional For The Councils Of The Church

Can you imagine how people would’ve reacted if Emperor Kennedy forced his own Christology upon Vatican II?

It is, nonetheless, emperor St. Justinian, who I think really exemplifies the politics which lay behind the councils. While, starting with Nicea, there was a general expectation that an ecumenical council would be called by the emperor (while, of course, as many like St Maximus would point out, it was not a necessary requirement), with Justinian and II Constantinople, we see the political pull behind the council that Justinian was able to add to the councils declarations and no one seemed to question such interpolation. The condemnations against Origen and the Origenists, many now think, were not made at the council, but were rendered put into the council records by Justinian and became known and treated as a part of the council despite being made later and not part of what was ratified by the council fathers. The council itself was called in part to remind the church of the imperial position on Christ, that Chalcedon did not allow for a neo-Nestorian rendition of Christology.

Thus, a major intention of the council was to promote the imperial condemnation of the “Three Chapters,” which included condemnation of people associated with Nestorius who previously had not received such anathemas. Because the council was, in part, made to confirm Justinian’s desires, it is not surprising that his condemnations against Origenists were able to be interpolated into the council (there is a question of whether or not the condemnations were made before or after the council, with some saying before, allowing them to be viewed as agreed upon by the council fathers, but even in such a case, they were not a part of the council proper and Justinian’s authority was able to be used to justify their inclusion into the record). And a major reason why the condemnations of Origen were significant is because “Origenist monks” were seen as radical contenders against the political power structure, and so the condemnation, using their theology, was a way to undermine their political power.

Examples could be had of other councils, and the constant calling of them, by emperors, to deal with political unrest that theological concerns made for them. The point is that, instead of being called by the purest of motives, the councils were mixed in worldly affairs and often called to deal with political conflicts which emerged. And they were run as political events, with political expectation placed upon those who came to them. Only in the modern world has this changed: Vatican II was political, but it was probably one of the least political councils because the relationship between church and state has rendered the political power-play in councils to be less than any other time. There was little way for the church to ask the state to stop and prevent bishops from coming; there was little to no “bribery” in respect to what came before. And, it is the irony of those who contend against Vatican II, for being too modern, are the ones who prove themselves the modernist when they contend it was “too political,” because such a concern is the most modern of concerns possible.

Politics is traditional for the Councils of the Church.

Henry Karlson, after long pursuit in early church history and philosophy, with the help of friends, became a Byzantine Catholic in 1995. Because of his interests, he pursue graduate studies, first for a Master’s Degree at Xavier University, and later, doctoral studies at Catholic University of America. He was one of the founding members and key writers at Vox Nova for several years.