Introduction. On October 30, 451, during the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, the dispute between Metropolitan Eunomius of Nicomedia and Metropolitan Anastasius of Nicaea was considered. Eunomius believed that his rights as the metropolitan of the entire province of Bithynia, in regard to ordinations, were violated by Anastasius of Nicaea, who had deposed a number of clerics of the city of Vasilinopolis. Information about this lawsuit is taken from the published acts of the 14th session of the Chalcedon Council. Methods. The work is based on the application of the historical-critical method of data processing of the source text used in the original in Greek according to the standard critical edition and quoted by the author in his own translation. Analysis. Based on the analysis of the act material, the author restores the course, content and internal logic of the conciliar audition of the claim of Eunomius of Nicomedia. It also reveals the cause of the claim, external factors and figures that had influenced the course of the case and become the cause of its occurrence. The factors include the unsettled status of the Metropolitan of Nicaea within the province of Bithynia, the limits of his competence and jurisdiction. Similar factor is the unsettled status of the Metropolitan of Nicomedia as bishop of the provincial capital (metropolis), that lead to a conflict of jurisdictions over the Bithynian city of Vasilinopolis. Decisive is also the influence in Bithynia of the patriarchal see of Constantinople and persons who occupied it, beginning with John Chrysostos. The decision of the Ecumenical Council on this lawsuit turns out to be half-hearted: the city of Vasilinopolis and its clergy are recognized as belonging to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Nicomedia, declared the first Metropolitan of Bithynia, but the question of the subordination of the Metropolitan of Nicaea, recognized as the second, remains open. This is evident from later sources, in which the Metropolitan of Nicaea is designated as an independent ruling metropolitan within the province of Bithynia, with his own district and jurisdiction. Results. The decision of the Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon failed to approve in Bithynia the canonical definition of the Council of Nicaea that there should be only one ruling metropolitan in the province. It is obvious that the decision of the judges was influenced by the ancient tradition of intercity rivalry between Nicaea and Nicomedia, dating back to pre-Christian times. The latter was clearly manifested in the fact that the main argument of the litigants was the recognition of the secular title of metropolis for both cities, confirmed by imperial letters. Thus, the dispute between Nicaea and Nicomedia shows that the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils were embodied in church-political and church-administrative practice in so far as they corresponded, or at least did not contradict the established tradition of socio-political relations.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call