Are the Eastern Orthodox conciliarists?

[josie_L]

So you want to continue to deny its ecumenicity? According to Catholic dogma, if Hadrian recognized it as ecumenical, which you’ve finally admitted that he did, then you have to recognize that it is so. Otherwise, it undermines the whole Catholic dogma of papal supremacy.

But Pope Hadrian II did not question the Greeks who maintained that Trullo was ecumenical, nor for that matter could it be viewed as such without papal ratification. For up until Pope Hadrian II, there wasn’t a pope who looked upon that council favourably or believed it to be ecumenical. And pope John VIII was said to accept them only if :

“all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and the decrees of Rome,”

legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/trullo.asp

Moreover, the mere fact that Emperor Justinian and the participants of the aforementioned council went to great lengths to acquire the pope’s ratification lends credence to the Catholic belief that no ecumenical council could be enforced on the universal Church without the consent of he who holds the primacy, i.e., the pope.

That’s based on the assumption that either the Catholic Church never historically forgot Hadrian’s words, which seems to be the case OR that you are in the wrong church, my friend.

Well, I’ve been reading up on the issue and this is what I found out concerning “canon of Tradition”:

So Scripture does not stand alone apart from tradition. And yet unlike
the canon of Scripture, the canon of tradition has not been fixed since
Nicaea II, which determined the canon of the councils. It is to be noted,
moreover, that there is an important distinction between tradition in the
strict sense and tradition in the broad sense, the former being constitutive
of the contents of revelation (“source”: “Tradition” with a capital letter,
according to Congar10), and the latter being rather a continuing witness of
tradition. The ecumenical councils and the Church Fathers belong under
tradition in the broad sense as its chief constituents.

The Orthodox Churches stand by the tradition or the canon of the seven
ecumenical councils fixed by Nicaea II,11 whereas Catholics generally
exhibit a longer list of 21 ecumenical councils including the two Vatican
Councils. But this is not an official list or canon fixed by any ecumenical
council or papal definition or decree. During the Counter Reformation
Catholics drew up several lists of ecumenical councils. One such, by Robert
Bellarmine, listed 18 of them (omitting Constance but including Trent).12
A group of Roman scholars working under the patronage of Pope Paul V
assumed Bellarmine’s list but added to it the Council of Constance and
published a complete collection of the decrees of the ecumenical councils.13
This so-called “Roman edition” did not, however, contain any papal decree
and therefore was not an official Catholic collection. Nevertheless, with it a
list of 19 ecumenical councils began to circulate in the West. **And with the
addition of the two Vatican Councils the number grew to 21, although no
authoritative church magisterium established this canon.**14

cdn.theologicalstudies.net/71/71.3/10.1177.004056391007100307.pdf

I wouldn’t be pointing fingers if I were you, there is the matter of the eight ecumenical council which the Orthodox do not recognize.

 

[josie_L]

Primary sources trump secondary sources. I cited Hefele mostly for the translation before I did my own. I don’t have to agree with him on everything, especially when I base my position and differences upon primary sources. The Roman Church’s recognition of Trullo as ecumenical is indisputable in Hadrian’s letter. I’ll admit that Trullo is somewhat irregular in its conduct, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Hadrian explicitly considered it a part of the six previous ecumenical councils. Even though Pope John VIII later claimed exemption from some of its canons, it does not change this fact.

Then he was misled, i.e,. he never questioned the Greeks as to whether Trullo was indeed part of the 6th ecumenical council. That being said, Trullo deals only with disciplinary canons, many of which were forgotten by the East nor for that matter were they enforced/applied in the West (priestly celibacy still exists, fasting on Saturdays. . .)

 

[Rohzek]

But Pope Hadrian II did not question the Greeks who maintained that Trullo was ecumenical, nor for that matter could it be viewed as such without papal ratification. For up until Pope Hadrian II, there wasn’t a pope who looked upon that council favourably or believed it to be ecumenical. And pope John VIII was said to accept them only if

It is Pope Hadrian I, not the second. And so what if John VIII added conditions to some of the canons? Like I’ve said before, Rome had on numerous occasions accepted councils as ecumenical with some conditions.

Moreover, the mere fact that Emperor Justinian and the participants of the aforementioned council went to great lengths to acquire the pope’s ratification lends credence to the Catholic belief that no ecumenical council could be enforced on the universal Church without the consent of he who holds the primacy, i.e., the pope.

Or it could lend support to the Orthodox view that we generally desire unity on issues we deem important. That’s also why Eastern Christians spent far more time than Rome trying to reel back in the Oriental Orthodox.

Well, I’ve been reading up on the issue and this is what I found out concerning “canon of Tradition”:

I’m well aware of this, which is why I mentioned it in my previous post although not with as much detail.

I wouldn’t be pointing fingers if I were you, there is the matter of the eight ecumenical council which the Orthodox do not recognize.

There is a dispute as to whether there are eight, nine, or ?maybe ten? ecumenical councils in Orthodoxy. Those are small positions to hold. Nevertheless, those councils that are disputed for such a honorific status (Constantinople 879, the Palamite Councils, and Jerusalem 1672) are universally agreed upon doctrinally within Orthodoxy regardless as to what one’s position is on their ecumenical status. Again, this sounds very confusing to a Catholic, but it is rooted in the fact that “ecumenical” status of a council is largely honorific under the Orthodox mindset. This is why we are so often annoyed when we see Catholics writing articles about our upcoming council at Crete, calling it the next Orthodox “ecumenical” council. It betrays a fundamental understanding of us, which is bound to happen, but does get old after a while.

As for me pointing fingers, I’m only pointing out that under Catholic criteria, Trullo should be considered ecumenical. And the continual denial of this fact only undermines Catholic dogma. The issue is quite different from the Orthodox numbering of councils solely because I really don’t see anything vastly important at stake if or if not our councils are considered “ecumenical.” And that largely has to do with what “ecumenical” means in Orthodoxy generally speaking and the lack of a doctrine regarding papal supremacy.

 

[Rohzek]

Then he was misled, i.e,. he never questioned the Greeks as to whether Trullo was indeed part of the 6th ecumenical council. That being said, Trullo deals only with disciplinary canons, many of which were forgotten by the East nor for that matter were they enforced/applied in the West (priestly celibacy still exists, fasting on Saturdays. . .)

Pope Hadrian I knew full well what Trullo was considering the history of the subject between the papacy and Byzantium. It was an issue of long contention, and Hadrian finally gave it his approval. Saying he was misled is without basis in history and merit. You’re making things up now so you can continue to maintain that it wasn’t ecumenical.

Also might I add that much of this was done during the process of II Nicaea, which was conducted by-the-book more than any other council before it due to Empress Irene’s precarious political status. To say that the Eastern bishops misled the legates and the papacy is a ridiculous claim to make, especially considering the aftermath of Hieria, which had many political supporters, as can be seen with the occurrence of the Second Iconoclasm.

 

[Rohzek]

I think the author in your link above is getting hung up on the definition of infallibility. I have seen Orthodox writers refer to the ecumenical councils as infallible or to the Church as a whole as infallible. Its just a word - some Orthodox use it and some prefer not to. Certainly when Catholics use the word “infallible” we are not equating it with the “inspiration” of Scripture. For example, we acknowledge that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is framed within the context of Latin theological constructs. Eastern Catholics are not obliged to use said Latin theological constructs…but all those in communion with the Catholic Church accept that that there is an underlining truth (most importantly, that Our Lady is All-Holy). At the end of the day, whether we use the word infallible or not, we both believe there are binding truths and that the Church knows Her faith.

The author necessarily had to focus on the definition of infallibility to pave the way for the greater point that ultimately the Catholic model is just as circular as the Orthodox model.

 

[twf]

The author necessarily had to focus on the definition of infallibility to pave the way for the greater point that ultimately the Catholic model is just as circular as the Orthodox model.

In a sense all faiths are circular. I acknowledge that. But as the author says it is “easier” to determine what the CC believes. For me that’s important. If I were to reject papal primacy, I would personally be paralyzed: Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church? To me, without a concrete centre of unity, they all have equally convincing claims to being the true Church.
Regarding whether one pope recognized this or that council, the Catholic understanding of primacy is far more nuanced than most non-Catholics think. The ordinary magisterium- the collective and consistent witness of the popes and bishops down through the centuries- is just as binding as the definitive act of one pope in time and place.

 

[Rohzek]

In a sense all faiths are circular. I acknowledge that. But as the author says it is “easier” to determine what the CC believes. For me that’s important. If I were to reject papal primacy, I would personally be paralyzed: Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church? To me, without a concrete centre of unity, they all have equally convincing claims to being the true Church.

I can certainly understand that and respect it. There was a time that I felt the exact same way. But as I read history, I soon discovered that fate has not been kind enough to make things clear.

Regarding whether one pope recognized this or that council, the Catholic understanding of primacy is far more nuanced than most non-Catholics think. The ordinary magisterium- the collective and consistent witness of the popes and bishops down through the centuries- is just as binding as the definitive act of one pope in time and place.

The problem with this framework with regards to Trullo is that it yields two mutually exclusive results. The only way out is for a Catholic to make the claim that the succeeding popes forgot about Hadrian’s words, and that all along Trullo was in fact ecumenical.

 

[Wandile]

The problem with this framework with regards to Trullo is that it yields two mutually exclusive results. The only way out is for a Catholic to make the claim that the succeeding popes forgot about Hadrian’s words, and that all along Trullo was in fact ecumenical.

Not really. Trullo was never ecumenical as it was confirmed under false pretenses.

The Greek claim was based on the belief that the same bishops of the Sixth Ecumenical Council issued the Trullan canons just five years later, but we have seen that this belief is historically inaccurate. The popes have been misled on more than one occasion by their own legates. Not saying this happened here but the fact that even the later greeks never knew that trullo was a synod of different bishops held 10 years rather than 5 years after the 6th council says enough to show that Hadrian probably was misled too. His predecessors and successors never confirmed it. He was the only one and probably trusting that this was a continuation of the 6th council composed of these are bishops. Trullo has been called erroneous by more than one Pope.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Just a clarification.

Rozhek, you stated that Christianity spread all the way to India but that Nicaea did not have any representative of these lands. This is incorrect.

Abun Mor Yohannon of Persia and India represented his (Syriac) Church, as well as his colleague Mor David. He also signed the statements of Faith at Nicaea I in 325

 

[Rohzek]

Just a clarification.

Rozhek, you stated that Christianity spread all the way to India but that Nicaea did not have any representative of these lands. This is incorrect.

Abun Mor Yohannon of Persia and India represented his (Syriac) Church, as well as his colleague Mor David. He also signed the statements of Faith at Nicaea I in 325

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Rohzek]

Not really. Trullo was never ecumenical as it was confirmed under false pretenses.

The Greek claim was based on the belief that the same bishops of the Sixth Ecumenical Council issued the Trullan canons just five years later, but we have seen that this belief is historically inaccurate. The popes have been misled on more than one occasion by their own legates. Not saying this happened here but the fact that even the later greeks never knew that trullo was a synod of different bishops held 10 years rather than 5 years after the 6th council says enough to show that Hadrian probably was misled too. His predecessors and successors never confirmed it. He was the only one and probably trusting that this was a continuation of the 6th council composed of these are bishops. Trullo has been called erroneous by more than one Pope.

Keep moving those goal posts. First it was that Hadrian’s words didn’t matter because throughout much of Latin history it wasn’t regarded as ecumenical, and now it is that Hadrian was misled by those mythical and scheming eastern bishops.

This is a ridiculous claim. Hadrian wasn’t misled on anything, nor do you have evidence for it. Present the evidence of being misled, otherwise the preponderance of evidence suggests that the papacy was always aware of what Trullo was. As the previous popes’ issues with the council beforehand show, the papacy knew well what Trullo was. Hadrian didn’t just magically forget what Trullo was and then acknowledge its ecumenicity by accident. Hadrian acquiesced to the issue and acknowledged its ecumenicity, because he and his predecessors and even successors always knew what Trullo was. Additionally, the particular canon he cites was important within the context of II Nicaea because it referred to the use of images. This was no accident nor an act of being misled.

I like how eastern bishops are always accused of duplicity whenever inconvenient historical facts pop up on certain issues here.

 

[Abu]

**Priestly Celibacy Is Here to Stay – The History of Priestly Celibacy
Fr. Ray Ryland Ph.D
"Breaking with Tradition **
Those who advocate optional clerical celibacy often appeal to the Eastern Orthodox practice as a valid apostolic precedent. (But how could there be two contradictory “apostolic” traditions?) **Prior to 692 all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition requiring continence of both married and unmarried clergy. The Council of Trullo in 692 radically changed this discipline. **[My emphasis].

"In Canon 13, Trullo explicitly (and polemically) rejected the discipline of Rome—that is, the universal discipline observed to that time. The Council decreed that henceforth married men ordained to the diaconate and the priesthood should be allowed to remain in conjugal union with their wives after ordination. This privilege was not extended to married men ordained to the episcopate. The Council ruled that these others would still have to live in perpetual continence after ordination, but gave no reason for this ruling.

"This was a significant break with apostolic tradition. The Council tried to justify its actions by appealing to the Council of Carthage (397). When it quoted Carthage as a precedent, Trullo changed what Carthage had decreed in order to provide a precedent for Trullo’s unprecedented action. The Carthaginian canons were widely known. Trullo did not simply make a mistake. Trullo falsified the Carthaginian canons for its own purposes. This is the origin of the Eastern Orthodox discipline regarding priestly celibacy.

“Ever since the Eastern Churches separated themselves from Rome, Rome has always referred to the Eastern discipline in respectful terms, so as not to widen the breach. But Rome has never accepted the Trullan canon as a valid ecumenical decree. Rome has studiously avoided suggesting that the Eastern practice is of equal value with the apostolic tradition of clerical celibacy preserved by Rome.”
cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-…stly-celibacy/

Trullo was the break with Apostolic Norm.

 

[josie_L]

It is Pope Hadrian I, not the second. And so what if John VIII added conditions to some of the canons? Like I’ve said before, Rome had on numerous occasions accepted councils as ecumenical with some conditions.

Yes, Rome did put conditions on certain ecumenical councils before ratifying them, but unlike these councils, only Trullo’s acceptance/ecumenicity was contested by so many popes, i.e., Pope Sergius flat out refused to ratify Trullo because of its irregularities (Basil Gortnya of Crete claiming he was the pope’s legate when he had no such commission, no Western representation, and a pope who didn’t seem to get an invite) and it’s perceived errors (anti-Roman canons).

Or it could lend support to the Orthodox view that we generally desire unity on issues we deem important. That’s also why Eastern Christians spent far more time than Rome trying to reel back in the Oriental Orthodox.

If the East truly desired UNITY they should have invited the West to the council being that they intended it to be ecumenical, they should not have criticized Latin customs, they should not have accepted Basil Gortnya of Crete as the pope’s legate. If the East wanted or desired unity then we wouldn’t have had TRULLO to contend with (it could have simply been a regional council and we would have been all the happier for it).

I’m well aware of this, which is why I mentioned it in my previous post although not with as much detail.

Good, then you know that nothing is actually finalized with regard to the “canon of Tradition”.

There is a dispute as to whether there are eight, nine, or ?maybe ten? ecumenical councils in Orthodoxy. Those are small positions to hold. Nevertheless, those councils that are disputed for such a honorific status (Constantinople 879, the Palamite Councils, and Jerusalem 1672) are universally agreed upon doctrinally within Orthodoxy regardless as to what one’s position is on their ecumenical status. Again, this sounds very confusing to a Catholic, but it is rooted in the fact that “ecumenical” status of a council is largely honorific under the Orthodox mindset.

Well, Trullo is disputed as well, because even though it seems that Pope Hadrian I believed or did not question that Trullo was part of the sixth council, i.e., he was mistaken, i.e, it wasn’t.

As for me pointing fingers, I’m only pointing out that under Catholic criteria, Trullo should be considered ecumenical. And the continual denial of this fact only undermines Catholic dogma.

Well, as I stated before nothing is finalized with regard to the “canon of Tradition”, so although a pope might have approved Trullo believing that it was part of the sixth council, we know that prior/post Hadrian’s I reign we have other popes who are in varying disagreement regarding Trullo and its canons. Trullo, moreover, is a council that pertains to disciplinary practices only, which are not immutable.

Since we now fully recognize that disciplinary canons are not immutable or irrevocable, the question of the ecumenicity of this council loses some importance. An ecumenical council’s grace of infallibility does not properly apply to disciplinary canons, except that they may not incidentally contain anything contrary to divine faith or natural law. Papal ratification of the canons after the fact might raise the canons to ecumenical status in a more ordinary sense, namely that they apply to every jurisdiction in the Church, not that the Council in Trullo is properly ecumenical. Even here the question is somewhat moot, since many of the Trullan canons have fallen into disuse in both the East and the West.

arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment06q.htm

 

[josie_L]

You’re mistranslating the Latin. “cum omnibus regulis quae jure ac divinitus ab ipsis promulgatae sunt” does not render “those alone which were lawfully and divinely promulgated.” Not even Heefle’s translation renders such. You’re adding a meaning that isn’t there. I’m not sure where you are getting the word “alone” from.

First, let’s be clear that I did not mistranslate as I did not translate it. The translation comes from this article:

arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment06q.htm

While the representative’s legate status is disputed, your accusation of some sort of grand conspiracy is outrageous.

No, not a grand conspiracy, but it sure doesn’t look good that the participants would accept Basil of Gortnya of Crete as the pope’s legate simply because he was his representative in the last council, and that was what 10 years prior to the council of Trullo. Moreover, with the lack of Western presentation, how pray tell could they believe him, i.e., were they not aware that they themselves did not invite the West???

The Russian Church alone holding a council and claiming it to be ecumenical is a big stretch. You would be better off if you said all but one of the churches were represented. At that point would come down to the truth of its doctrines. The alternative would be to accept it, but with conditions as the the Church of Rome had done with not only Trullo but other ecumenical councils as well, most notably Chalcedon.

So you’d see nothing wrong with the Russian Orthodox Church holding an ecumenical council (with only one patriarch present and with the vast majority of the participants coming from the ROC) and the Ecumenical Patriarch not even invited to said council??

 

[josie_L]

Pope Hadrian I knew full well what Trullo was considering the history of the subject between the papacy and Byzantium. It was an issue of long contention, and Hadrian finally gave it his approval. Saying he was misled is without basis in history and merit. You’re making things up now so you can continue to maintain that it wasn’t ecumenical.

I am not making things up, I am simply stating that he must not have questioned that Trullo was part of the 6th ecumenical council because factually it wasn’t, moreover, the Greeks were purporting it as ecumenical long before Hadrian, even though it wasn’t ratified by a pope to give it binding force on the whole universal church (which is why Pope Justinian II went to such great lengths to have Pope Sergius sign, i.e, he was going to arrest him just like his predecessor before him did with Vigilius).

Moreover, I didn’t use the word “misled” to mean they deliberately lied to him, but that they were mistaken in believing that Trullo was part of the sixth council.

 

[SyroMalankara]

**Priestly Celibacy Is Here to Stay – The History of Priestly Celibacy
Fr. Ray Ryland Ph.D
"Breaking with Tradition **
Those who advocate optional clerical celibacy often appeal to the Eastern Orthodox practice as a valid apostolic precedent. (But how could there be two contradictory “apostolic” traditions?) **Prior to 692 all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition requiring continence of both married and unmarried clergy. The Council of Trullo in 692 radically changed this discipline. **[My emphasis].

"In Canon 13, Trullo explicitly (and polemically) rejected the discipline of Rome—that is, the universal discipline observed to that time. The Council decreed that henceforth married men ordained to the diaconate and the priesthood should be allowed to remain in conjugal union with their wives after ordination. This privilege was not extended to married men ordained to the episcopate. The Council ruled that these others would still have to live in perpetual continence after ordination, but gave no reason for this ruling.

"This was a significant break with apostolic tradition. The Council tried to justify its actions by appealing to the Council of Carthage (397). When it quoted Carthage as a precedent, Trullo changed what Carthage had decreed in order to provide a precedent for Trullo’s unprecedented action. The Carthaginian canons were widely known. Trullo did not simply make a mistake. Trullo falsified the Carthaginian canons for its own purposes. This is the origin of the Eastern Orthodox discipline regarding priestly celibacy.

“Ever since the Eastern Churches separated themselves from Rome, Rome has always referred to the Eastern discipline in respectful terms, so as not to widen the breach. But Rome has never accepted the Trullan canon as a valid ecumenical decree. Rome has studiously avoided suggesting that the Eastern practice is of equal value with the apostolic tradition of clerical celibacy preserved by Rome.”
cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-…stly-celibacy/

Trullo was the break with Apostolic Norm.

I reject this premise. The Oriental Orthodox reject Trullo and have never accepted universal celibacy. Neither have the Eastern Catholics in practice. Nor were they legitimately required or even validly asked to do so. Ever.

Heck, the Assyrian Church of the East, which is neither Oriental nor Eastern Orthodox even considered allowing married priests to be bishop (even recently, in the 1960s), so the whole premise is flawed.

 

[Wandile]

Keep moving those goal posts. First it was that Hadrian’s words didn’t matter because throughout much of Latin history it wasn’t regarded as ecumenical, and now it is that Hadrian was misled by those mythical and scheming eastern bishops.

None of the sort just poi ting out all the various ways we can prove the flaws in the idea of trullo being ecumenical. There are way too many problems with this synod. Hafele on his own proved numerous reason as to why trullo could never be ecumenical.

This is a ridiculous claim. Hadrian wasn’t misled on anything, nor do you have evidence for it. Present the evidence of being misled, otherwise the preponderance of evidence suggests that the papacy was always aware of what Trullo was.

Hafele made mention of the Greek belief that trullo composed of the same bishops just five years later of the sixth synod. He for sure is not unsubstantiated. As he is respected by his peers.

As the previous popes’ issues with the council beforehand show, the papacy knew well what Trullo was.

No they knew it was Greek council which, as per church tradition, had to send their acts to Rome for confirmation

Greek Church historian Socrates Scholasticus in the 6th century :

" an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome."

“Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome”

Patriarch St. Mennas of Constantinople :

“we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.”

At the time the acts were sent to Pope Sergius he called it an erroneous council and said he would rather die than confirm it’s error. Venerable Bede Calle it a reprobate synod and Paul the deacon called it an erratic one. Pope Hadrian lived a century after the council and for at least 100 years it was not ecumenical. He received the acts of the 7th council. He only Confirmed that the acts of the seventh council claimed (that these canons belonged to the sixth council). He was obviously misled as he knew his predecessors stand on the councik of trullo and his successors were just as easily unnaceotikng of trullo.

I like how eastern bishops are always accused of duplicity whenever inconvenient historical facts pop up on certain issues here.

Oh gosh the Greek bishops were well know for forging documents, letters and the like as well as paying of papal legates at councils to secure their signatures. Sometimes even using any bishop of Western or in as a Paul legate despite the pope not commissioning them.
Plain history

St. Robert Bellarmine said of Greek forgery of letters and falsehoods perpetuated by them :

*"… the supposition would not be rash because pseudo-letters of pope Vigil and of Manna the Constantinopolitan Patriarch had previously been introduced into the records of the Fifth General Council. This has been testified in the 12th and 14th acts of the Sixth General Council, when the hoax was discovered as the Fathers read over the acts of the preceding Fifth Synod and found that files containing fabricated letters had been inserted. There would be nothing extraordinary if the same kind of forgers had falsified the register of the Sixth General Council."

"St. Leo the Great in his “Epistle to the Palestinians” (83) already complained that, not keeping in mind his being a living witness, the Greeks had altered his “Epistle to Flavian”. Gregory (vol. V, epistle 14 to Narsis) asserted that the Constantinopolitans did corrupt the Chalcedonian Synod and that he suspected they did the same with the Ephesian Council. He adds that the Roman manuscripts are much more trustworthy than the Grecian ones, “because, as the Romans are less subtle, they are also less inclined to perfidy”.

A last example: Nicolas I in his epistle to Michael refers the Emperor to Hadrian's letter with these words:

“It is still intact, exactly as it was originally sent by the Apostolic See, in the hands of the Constantinopolitan clergy, if however, it has not been tampered with according to the Greeks’ habit.” And he does not say so without a good reason. For what he quotes from Hadrian’s letter to Tharasius in the epistle he himself sent to Photius, has vanished from the same letter, as it was read during the Seventh Synod. The Greeks had actually suppressed a whole passage, because it meant dishonor for Tharasius. Now if the Greeks did corrupt the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Seventh synods, is there anything extraordinary about their likewise falsifying the Sixth? All the more so, because after the council had been regularly concluded, many bishops traveled back to Constantinople to edict the so-called “canons of Trullos”. "*

 

[Wandile]

For further confirmation of this foul play there are many other proofs, and among them, those shown in an essay by M. Jean-Andre Perlant about “the old orthodox”: what the Abbes Barruel and Darras discovered during the 19th century. In the “protonotarius apostolicus”, Justin Fevre, reports in the reissue of the complete works of St. Robert Bellarmine (A.D. 1870), which no “expert” can pretend not to have rea, In a footnote (liber IV, Chapter XI) the “protonotarius apostolicus” reveals that it is quite certain that :

1. that there were specialised workshops fabricating apocryphal documents both in Antioch and in Constantinople in the surroundings of the churches dedicated to Saint John and Saint Phocas.

2. that 227 Greek bishops have, without any qualms, signed the text of the so-called "quintus-sextus" (V - VI) General Council, a wild meeting between the Fifth and the Sixth regular ones, which Rome has always considered as a “robbers' synod”, similar to the one that took place after the real Sixth synod of Constantinople, and prepared the ”canons of Trullos”, well-known because the Eastern Church has used them as an excuse to allow her priests (popes) to marry.

3. that the texts of the Sixth Synod have undergone so many mutations and interpolations that they are teeming with contradictions.

4. that forgery is patent when one compares the acts of the Sixth Synod with St. Agatho`s biography in the Pontifical Annals (Liber Pontificalis).

5. that Rome has never admitted any accusation against Honorius. The letters of Saint Leo II which divulge the condemnation have been fabricated by Monothelists. This is evident from a confusion of dates, from the stupidity of the “Pontiff” contradicting St Agatho and Emperor Constantine Pogonat, and writing to Quiricius Toletanus, who had been dead for forty years, and to Simplicius, a Spanish prefect who never existed. If you want more proofs, consult the ‘Annales de philosophic chretienne’ 1853, second volume.

Taken from here

 

[Abu]

SyroMalankara #56
The Oriental Orthodox reject Trullo and have never accepted universal celibacy. Neither have the Eastern Catholics in practice. Nor were they legitimately required or even validly asked to do so. Ever.

The disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly celibacy. The council gave no explanation of its rulings, which were ancient and presumably well-known. **Canon 33 forbade all married bishops, priests, and deacons from having sexual relations with their wives and begetting children. The council reminded the married clergy that they were bound by a vow of perpetual continence. Penalty for breaking that vow was deposition from the ministry. Commenting on this council, Pope Pius XI said that these canons, the “first written traces” of the “Law of Ecclesiastical Celibacy,” “presuppose a still earlier unwritten practice. **” (Ad Catholici Sacerdotii , 43, 1935).

From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

There are no other scholarly studies of such high repute, nor of such recent vintage, to confirm what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has confirmed in The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements. Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483, “That priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the earliest period of the Church, is shown clearly and convincingly by Card. A.M. Stickler, The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf.also I: Cochini, *Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal *(Paris-Namur, 1981); S Heid, *Zolibat in der friihen Kirche *(Paderborn, 1997).”
[Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, *The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements. Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483].
[My emphases].

Trying to deny that reality merely reflects the outdated and false ideas expressed.

 

[josie_L]

The disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly celibacy. The council gave no explanation of its rulings, which were ancient and presumably well-known. **Canon 33 forbade all married bishops, priests, and deacons from having sexual relations with their wives and begetting children. The council reminded the married clergy that they were bound by a vow of perpetual continence. Penalty for breaking that vow was deposition from the ministry. Commenting on this council, Pope Pius XI said that these canons, the “first written traces” of the “Law of Ecclesiastical Celibacy,” “presuppose a still earlier unwritten practice. **” (Ad Catholici Sacerdotii , 43, 1935).

From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

There are no other scholarly studies of such high repute, nor of such recent vintage, to confirm what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has confirmed in The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements. Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483, “That priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the earliest period of the Church, is shown clearly and convincingly by Card. A.M. Stickler, The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf.also I: Cochini, *Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal *(Paris-Namur, 1981); S Heid, *Zolibat in der friihen Kirche *(Paderborn, 1997).”
[Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, *The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements

. Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483].
[My emphases].

Trying to deny that reality merely reflects the outdated and false ideas expressed.

Yes, priestly celibacy does go back to the very beginning, but I think what Syromalankara is trying to point out is that there were obviously married priests as well, i.e., the West for the most part practiced priestly celibacy and the East allowed their priests to marry (as is evidenced today).