This cult of secrecy engendered difficulties which are
written large upon the page of history. Disputes arose about the wording of the
creeds, about the canon of the Scriptures, about the number and nature of the
mortal sins, and the penances which they should entail. Periodically a curious
investigator raised a storm by claiming that he had discovered a flaw in the
traditional formulae, or a mistake in the sense which was currently attached to
them. The one way of meeting such doubts was to compare the traditions of the
older churches. This could be done by a provincial synod or a general council.
But of these tribunals the former was unsatisfactory, as its decisions were of
merely local validity and might be overruled by the voice of the universal Church.
The general council was hard to convene, particularly after a rift had opened
between the Eastern and the Western Churches. It was easier to select as the
final arbiter a bishop whose knowledge of tradition was derived from an
apostolic predecessor. In the East there were three such sees (Antioch,
Jerusalem, Alexandria), but in the West Rome alone satisfied the necessary
conditions. And the Bishops of Rome could claim, with some show of reason, that
their tradition was derived from a worthier source, and had been better guarded
against contagion, than that of any other Apostolic Church. Was it not a
well-established fact that Rome had preserved an unwavering front in the face
of the heretical Arius, when even Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria had wavered?
