road which would have led them into schism eventually, we may see the ideas of Neilos Doxapatres,[1] whom I have already quoted.
This worthy was Archimandrite at Palermo at the time of the Norman conquest. Afterwards he went to Constantinople, where he became Notary and Nomophylax of the Great Church.[2] While he was still at Palermo he wrote a book about the Patriarchates, which he calls "The Order of the Patriarchal Thrones."[3] His views on the Papacy are distinctly heretical. It is significant of the attitude of the first Norman kings of Sicily that he wrote this work by command of King Roger II. It was written in the year 1143. We have already seen what Neilos Doxapatres has to say about Byzantine sees in Italy and Sicily.[4] Here I add his ideas on the question of Church government in general. He knows that originally there were only three Patriarchates, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. He thinks that these three were in every way equal. No one of the Patriarchs "dared to put his foot into the diocese of another, nor to ordain in it, nor to arrange any sacred matter."[5] He thinks that when Jerusalem was made a Patriarchate it was taken from Alexandria.[6] He counts the Churches of Cyprus and Bulgaria as autocephalous.[7] But, he says, five Patriarchates were necessary, because our body has five senses.[8] Therefore the Synods of Constantinople I and Chalcedon erected a Patriarchate at Constantinople.[9] He denies absolutely that the Pope inherits any rights from St Peter. The Pope's position was due solely to the fact that Rome was the Imperial city. So when it ceased to be that, when it fell into the hands of Barbarians, all the Pope's privileges and his Primacy fell with it. Constantinople is the new Rome; it has all the rights of old Rome, therefore the Patriarch of Constantinople "obtained the privileges and Primacy of Rome."
- ↑ The printed editions of his work call him Doxopatrios. Other forms that occur are Doxapatros, Doxapatrì, Doxopater, τοῦ δόξα πατρί. Krumbacher says his name should be Νεῖλος Δοξαπατρῆς ("Byzantinische Litteraturgeschichte," 2nd edition, Munich, 1897, pp. 462-463). I am not quite convinced by his reasons; but one cannot do better than follow Krumbacher in such a matter.
- ↑ For his career see Krumbacher, op. cit., p. 415.
- ↑ Τάξις τῶν πατριαρχικῶν θρόνων, in P.G., cxxxii, cols. 1083-1114 and Parthey, "Hieroclis Synecdemus," etc. (Berlin, 1866), pp. 256-308.
- ↑ Pp. 88-90.
- ↑ Ed. Parthey, p. 278.
- ↑ P. 281.
- ↑ P. 285.
- ↑ This is a favourite Byzantine idea at that time; see "Orth. Eastern Church," p. 46, n. 2.
- ↑ Op. cit., pp. 286-287.
