Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[frjohnmorris]

So Pope John excommunicated Pat. Photius in 881? To be honest, I’m still finding that hard to believe.

P.S. Would that be the so-called “second Photian schism”?

Dvorik proves that there was no second Photian schism. St. Photius died in full Communion with Rome.
Obviously Rome does not seem to share the negative view of St. Photius that has been expressed during this discussion. Pages 69-84 of the February vol. of the Menaion published by the Sophia Press which is the publishing house of the Mekite Eastern Catholic Diocese of Newton, which is an Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Church in full Communion with Rome, contains the texts for the celebration of the Feast of St. Photius for February 6 which is celebrated as a major feast. A few quotes will prove my point. About St. Photius it says:

With inspired chants, let us acclaim the great Photos of holy fame!

“the most excellent man of God, the divine high priest.”

By a lawless decree, O holy one, you were torn from our faithful flock and suffered grievously for the Faith, O radiant hierarch, most glorious, blessed Photios of great renown, firm foundation of the Church, steadfast pillar of piety."

Let us acclaim Photios, the holy chief hierarch of the Church, the great teacher and preacher of the Word, the wondrous equal to the Apostles.

You were joined to the Apostles as their equal.

These are quotes for Vespers, similar language is used for Matins for the feast.
Remember, the above quotes are not published by an Eastern Orthodox press, but are taken directly from an official service book of the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church which is in full Communion with the Pope. That means that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes St. Photius as a Saint.
Therefore, before Roman Catholics criticize me for defending St. Photius, they should know that the man that I am defending is recognized as a Saint by their own Church since Rome recognizes all the Saints recognized by those Churches like the Melkites in Communion with Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Cavaradossi]

And yet still deposed again just 8 years later, apparently without a lot of contention for a good many years,looks like over a decade… specifically until he was safely deceased and of no danger to the secular power. This of course, was not uncommon for the Byzantine Emperors to willfully replace a Patriarch of Constantinople who displeased them and intrude and reward those who would (as we saw all too much during both Arianism and Iconoclasm), to say nothing of the nepotism also fairly common with the Imperial family and the Patriarchal throne. And who would dare voice their objection when the Emperor’s brother was now Patriarch?

I am really curious what opinions the easterners here think about the deposition of Ignatius or the later deposition of Photius and installation of Stephen? Just? Unjust? Just something that happened? No opinion?

I wonder what Roman Catholics make of the time when Byzantine Emperors and the Exarch of Ravenna exerted the same control (the power as civil authority to confirm episcopal elections) over the papacy.

It doesn’t require vilification to point out the possibly churlish motivations for his decidedly unbecoming behavior and why he could be looked upon with mixed emotions: admiration for his proven scholarly abilities… and deep shame for less admirable qualities.

How odd though, because St. Photius in his personal writings never claimed that he wished to be the Patriarch of Constantinople. In fact, he seemed to indicate the opposite, that he felt as if the position had been thrust upon him. How consistent is that with him having “churlish motivations”?

It is not slander to point out these less than noble motivations are one of the principle causes for Schism that endures to this day.

It is when there is no good proof that such motivations existed.

Slander is a clearly intelligent individual who put an untrustworthy wikipedia link to the gossip of sexual activities of the Popes (including Saint Peter himself! including much hearsay on those before their receipt of Holy Orders) as justification to defend the likes of Photius…

Slander is also using scholarship which is outdated (i.e., the scholarship of Fortescue in the old Catholic Encyclopedia) in order to impugn the memory of a great man. Fr. Dvornik’s study of the matter, though not entirely without fault, put to rest many myths surrounding the person of St. Photius.

 

[Aramis]

Keep in mind: Photius’ claims about the filioque are taught as the heart of the schism by many Orthodox. Lip service is paid to the lack of authority of the popes - even tho’ some of Photius predecessors as Patriarch confirmed Rome’s primacy in their writings.

I see several possibilities with Patriarch Photius -

1. he was gravely ignorant
2. he was willfully mistranslating the Credo for polemical reasons
3. he was unintentionally mistranslating for some perceived grievance
4. the Modern Orthodox are mistaken in what he meant.

4 is highly unlikely.
His other writings tend to rule out #1
Which leaves either wilful or unconscious mistranslation.

The issue of his uncanonical ordination is historical record - he should never have been allowed to take office due to how he was ordained. It would be like SSPX Fr. Tissler ordaining a layman elected pope - it would discredit them both.

 

[Peter_J]

there was no second Photian schism.

I agree, but I was just wondering whether AdvocatusVerbum does. (He previously claimed that Pope John VIII excommunicated Pat. Photius.)

Remember, the above quotes are not published by an Eastern Orthodox press, but are taken directly from an official service book of **the Melkite Eastern Catholic Church which is in full Communion with the Pope. **

 

[Zekariya]

Obviously Rome does not seem to share the negative view of St. Photius that has been expressed during this discussion. Pages 69-84 of the February vol. of the Menaion published by the Sophia Press which is the publishing house of the Mekite Eastern Catholic Diocese of Newton, which is an Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Church in full Communion with Rome, contains the texts for the celebration of the Feast of St. Photius for February 6 which is celebrated as a major feast. A few quotes will prove my point. About St. Photius it says: …]

Thanks for providing this information, Father!

 

[1AugustSon7]

Besides, the Church in Constantinople did not recognize the right of the Pope to excommunicate its Patriarch. Only an Ecumenical Council can excommunicate a Patriarch.

Says who? And since when did objective authority rest on someone’s opinion of it?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Keep in mind: Photius’ claims about the filioque are taught as the heart of the schism by many Orthodox. Lip service is paid to the lack of authority of the popes - even tho’ some of Photius predecessors as Patriarch confirmed Rome’s primacy in their writings.

I see several possibilities with Patriarch Photius -

1. he was gravely ignorant
2. he was willfully mistranslating the Credo for polemical reasons
3. he was unintentionally mistranslating for some perceived grievance
4. the Modern Orthodox are mistaken in what he meant.

Or possibility 5) he was representing accurately the tradition of the monarchy of the father, and saw how certain Latins violated this (like they would centuries later at Lyons and Florence), by proposing the Son not as being that through which the Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορευέται) or from which the Spirit progresses (πρόεισι), but rather as the cause of the Holy Spirit. For we find that St. Maximus attests in his Letter to Marinus that the Latins of his time did not confess the Son to be cause of the Holy Spirit using the filioque, but only intended to show the progression (τὸ προἲέναι) of the Spirit through the Son. Yet we know that in the centuries afterwards, the Latins would shift to teaching the opposite, that the Son is cause and source of the Holy Spirit’s hypostatic existence, such that by the time of Anselm, this was the common interpretation of “ex patre filioque procedit”

The issue of his uncanonical ordination is historical record - he should never have been allowed to take office due to how he was ordained.

Even if that is true, the Church decided to accept his ordination by a synod of nearly 400 bishops. The canons do not constrain the Church, but guide her decisions, and if nearly 400 bishops decided that oikonomia should be exercised, then who are we to question their wisdom?

 

[frjohnmorris]

\

Even if that is true, the Church decided to accept his ordination by a synod of nearly 400 bishops. The canons do not constrain the Church, but guide her decisions, and if nearly 400 bishops decided that oikonomia should be exercised, then who are we to question their wisdom?

I is not as if St. Photius were the first person to advance quickly through Holy Orders. St. Anselm also advanced through Holy Orders quickly. Pope John VIII recognized St. Photius as the rightful Patriarch of Constantinople. The principle of oikonomia allows for the letter of canon law to be dispensed with because, we Orthodox are not legalistic. I have friends who were ordained Sub-deacons before the Liturgy they were ordained a Deacon and ordained to the Priesthood the next day.
In all the discussions of St. Photius, his critics seem to ignore the fact that the election of Ignatius also violated canon law because he was appointed by Empress Theodore instead of going through the normal procedure in which the new Patriarch is chosen from a list of three candidates.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[LionHeart777]

Pope St. Leo, of course, in his fourth homily, explains that the power of the keys and of binding and loosing was given to all of the apostles and to all the pastors of the Church (not just the ‘supreme pastor’) by virtue of the type of Peter being given to all pastors of the Church. In this he echoes Cyprian’s understanding that in the person of Peter is found the unity of the Church.

But in what sense here is the bishop of Rome said by Patriarch Ignatius to be a successor of Peter? For if Patriarch Ignatius means to say that the bishop of Rome is recognized to have a primacy because of his spiritual succession from St. Peter (and actually from both Ss. Peter and Paul), then there is no disagreement between us and St. Ignatius, for the bishop of Rome possessed such a preeminence, according to St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

But if seems in fact rather impossible that he means to say much more than this, for if he wished to say that the bishop of Rome is inerrant in his decisions, or that the bishop of Rome shall never apostatize, then he would be in disagreement with the Ecumenical Councils, for the Sixth Ecumenical Council, as well as the very Council (numbered by the Latins as the Eighth Ecumenical Council) which reinstated St. Ignatius to the episcopacy in Constantinople condemned that apostate from the saving faith, Honorius, who by his heresy made his name and memory is foreign to all Christians. And if perhaps one should think that he meant that there is a true sacramental passing on of the Petrine Primacy from Peter to his spiritual successors in the Roman See, it must be remarked that this is impossible, for while Peter ordained his successor Linus, Linus did not ordain his successor, and it in fact has not been the custom of the Roman see for the bishop of Rome to ordain his own successor, which makes a sacramental Petrine Primacy impossible according to the praxis of the Church.

Hi Cavaradossi,

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make by your paraphrase of St. Leo here, but if it is to prove that St. Leo viewed Roman Primacy according to the Eastern Orthodox view (as opposed to the Catholic one), then you know from our previous discussion in another thread, that I completely disagree with this. As James Likoudis points out (someone I know who you don’t always agree with):

"…various Protestant and Orthodox writers…have conceded that certainly by the time of Pope Leo the Great in the 5th century and long before the Byzantine Greek Schism began in 1054 A.D., the Papacy was ‘alive and well’ with its universal jurisdiction stated in the fullest terms by such Popes as Leo the Great, Gelasius, Hormisdas, Gregory the Great, Hadrian I, Agatho… ”

Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/response.htm

Off the top of my head I would cite the Protestant historians J.N.D. Kelly (whom I cited in this post) and Bruce Shelley as those who would see Pope St. Leo teaching Roman Primacy by Divine Right.

Regarding Pat. Ignatius’ letter to Pope Hadrian II, I used that citation to show that he “certainly recognized Roman Primacy being by Divine Right” as I said. Here are some points I gather from it:

1.) He sees in Hadrian II as the ‘one only and pre-eminent and most universal physician’ appointed by God to heal the ‘wounds in the members of Christ’, and he cites Mt. 16:18-19 in support of this.

2.) He points out St. Peter as ‘the great and chief Apostle’ (citing Mt. 16:18-19)

3.) Referencing Mt. 16:18-19, he says that Christ ‘through him * He transmitted them * to all who, after him as successors were to be made Chief Pastors, and divine and sacred pontiffs of Elder Rome.’

4.) Because of all this, he points out, the previous Roman Pontiffs, that is, Pope Hadrian’s ‘predecessors on this throne, that is to say, the successors of the Prince of the Apostles’, have throughout the ages, ‘torn up the tares and destroyed the members which were corrupt or incurably affected.’

It is very clear to me that Pat. Ignatius is speaking of:

-A unique office (‘one only’)

-The office of ‘Chief Pastor’, ‘pre-eminent and most universal physician’

-Which was bestowed upon St. Peter by Christ (Mt. 16:18-19)

-Which ‘through him [St. Peter] He [Christ] transmitted them to all who, after him as successors were to be made Chief Pastors, and divine and sacred pontiffs of Elder Rome.’

I see bringing up mention of infallibility and the question of how the succession occurs as red herrings to the point I was trying to make, which again was that Pat. Ignatius certainly recognized Roman Primacy being by Divine Right. This is kind of reminiscent of our discussion in the other thread I mentioned, and while there are certainly answers to your objections, I’ll decline to dive into the topics of infallibility and Honorius and how the succession of St. Peter’s unique office works.

Continued…**

 

[LionHeart777]

Indeed, the Roman See has a long history of fighting over whether it should have jurisdiction over certain areas. Illyricum, for example, was originally placed under the Roman See, until it was transferred to being under the jurisdiction of Constantinople in the early fifth century. And Rome spent centuries sparring with Constantinople over who should have jurisdiction over Illyricum back. It is in fact telling that Roman bishops themselves appealed both to the external authorities of Ecumenical Councils (as Pope Hadrian did), and emperors (as Pope Boniface I did) in attempts to retrieve their lost jurisdiction over Illyricum and parts of the Southern Italian Penninsula (namely Calabria and Sicily) instead of just pronouncing by fiat that they had jurisdiction in those places.

The issue with Bulgaria is actually rather interesting, because jurisdiction over the Bulgarians was returned to Rome by the Council of 879, as part of a package to sweeten the deal (so to speak) of Photius’ reinstatement. The gesture, however, turned out to be meaningless, because the Bulgarians had already become accustomed to the usages of Constantinople, and because the Bulgarians had been given the canonical right to elect their own primate (i.e., autocephaly).

Perhaps it was Illyricum I had in mind as I had read about it in that work by S. Herbert Scott I quote often (I’m waiting for some new books for my Birthday.) If/ when the Popes appeal to external authorities, this need not be interpreted as the denying their own authority. I believe this to be a non sequitur. At the risk of making a horrible analogy and an admittedly imperfect one, I’ll offer the following anyways:

I’m sure we’re all familiar with those signs “no shirt, no shoes, no service” that are sometimes found posted outside of a business establishment. I really would rather have my 5-year-old daughter wear her shoes in public where appropriate. If I were taking her into a place with this posted, and say she had her sandals kicked off in the car and refused to put them on, I could point to the sign and say, see, you are not allowed in here without shoes. This is no way denies the authority I have as a parent to forbid her from going into that store without her shoes, with or without that sign being there. If she ran in anyways, I could even appeal to an employee, “Sir, isn’t it correct that little girls need to have their shoes on in here?” Likewise, authority being challenged or disobeyed doesn’t disprove it’s existence or legitimacy.

That is actually Pope St. Gregory, who is being referenced. But then I am also not aware of any document which shows that St. John the Faster gave heed Pope St. Gregory’s declaration that the presbyter John should be recognized as Orthodox. The Popes in fact had quite a history of attempting to interfere with the internal affairs of other churches in a similar manner as Pope St. Gregory did in this letter, only to be sternly rebuked for attempting to do so, as with Pope Innocent and the Church of Carthage.

That was my mistake, you are correct that that was Pope St. Gregory.

Of course, at the 7th Ecumenical Council, an edited version of his letter was read at the Council, which specifically removed the claim at the end which reads, “For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc.” This segment was replaced with this text instead, “For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end.”

I am aware of the Greek version read at the 7th Ecumenical Council (I even cited back in that other thread.) I think I may have cited Hadrian I’s letter to show how he viewed his own Primacy, and because I got the feeling that Father Morris was implying that Pope St. Nicholas I was unique in some way, or was the first to assert Papal Primacy or something (I apologize if I am misconstruing what you were doing Father Morris.). I for my part am wanting to figure out who wrote the Greek version, and why it is different. Got any leads? Bishop Hefele doesn’t seem to touch on his history of this; at least not in the section of the Second Session of the Acts of Nicaea II. S. Herbert Scott didn’t either if I recall in “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”.

 

[tdgesq]

Reconciled in 878 and excommunicated again by John VIII in 879. Deposed in 886. Was he reconciled again before the Emperor allowed him to be buried in Constantinople?

It is unlikely that he was excommunicated again in 879 by Pope John VIII, regardless of what you read in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I haven’t seen a reliable source document that supports that. The later deposition - if you believe it happened - was by the Roman Emperor, not the Catholic Church.

 

[tdgesq]

“excommunicated again by John VIII in 879”? I think we need to have a “Catholic huddle”, so to speak, and get our stories straight.

Thank you for the useful comment Peter. You know the differences between Catholic historians (all historians, for that matter) on the vague factual record concerning the Photian schism. Can you explain to me why you felt need to add that comment?

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you for the useful comment Peter. You know the differences between Catholic historians (all historians, for that matter) on the vague factual record concerning the Photian schism. Can you explain to me why you felt need to add that comment?

It is unlikely that he was excommunicated again in 879 by Pope John VIII, regardless of what you read in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I haven’t seen a reliable source document that supports that. The later deposition - if you believe it happened - was by the Roman Emperor, not the Catholic Church.

To be fair, AdvocatusVerbum later said that it was 881, not 879. But I don’t believe the claim is true regardless (if it is, let someone produce evidence for this supposed excommunication-by-JohnVIII).

Btw, I just have a basic knowledge of the events surrounding Pat. (or St.) Photius. Some other poster here have more expertise on the matter, I believe.

 

[Nine_Two]

Perhaps it was Illyricum I had in mind as I had read about it in that work by S. Herbert Scott I quote often (I’m waiting for some new books for my Birthday.) If/ when the Popes appeal to external authorities, this need not be interpreted as the denying their own authority. I believe this to be a non sequitur. At the risk of making a horrible analogy and an admittedly imperfect one, I’ll offer the following anyways:

I’m sure we’re all familiar with those signs “no shirt, no shoes, no service” that are sometimes found posted outside of a business establishment. I really would rather have my 5-year-old daughter wear her shoes in public where appropriate. If I were taking her into a place with this posted, and say she had her sandals kicked off in the car and refused to put them on, I could point to the sign and say, see, you are not allowed in here without shoes. This is no way denies the authority I have as a parent to forbid her from going into that store without her shoes, with or without that sign being there. If she ran in anyways, I could even appeal to an employee, “Sir, isn’t it correct that little girls need to have their shoes on in here?” Likewise, authority being challenged or disobeyed doesn’t disprove it’s existence or legitimacy.

While I agree with your argument. I would say the logic goes both ways. Appealing to the authority of Rome does not imply in any way, shape, or form, that one is under the authority of Rome - an argument often made by Catholic apologists.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Says who? And since when did objective authority rest on someone’s opinion of it?/QUOT

Neither the Eastern Patriarchs nor the 7 Ecumenical Councils recognized the excessive claims of papal authority. Even in the case of St. Photius, a council was held to remove him, the Council of Constantinople of 869 which was repudiated by the Council of Constantinople of 879 which was accepted by Pope John VIII.
The 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicea I in 325 actually limited the authority of the Bishop of Rome to the West, and made it clear that he had no authority over Alexandria or Antioch.
The 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon recognized Constantinople as having equal rank with Rome.
The 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II of 553, met despite Pope Vilgillus’ papal decree forbidding the council to meet. The council also threatened to excommunicate Pope Vigillus unless he accepted its decrees which he finally did.
The 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680 declared Pope Honarius an heretic.
The Council of Constantinople of 869 rejected the demand of the papal legates that the council accept the authority of the Pope to define the doctrine of the Church arguing instead that such authority only belonged to all 5 Patriarchs acting together.
An honest look at history, shows very clearly that whatever claims were made by Rome, the East never accepted them and always considered the Pope subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
It is not possible to reconcile papalism with the canons of the Ecumenical Councils which clearly establish the principle of local self-rule by independent Patriarchates.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

So Pope John excommunicated Pat. Photius in 881? To be honest, I’m still finding that hard to believe.

Why? The Encyclopedia itself references other sources. I’ve read some of them and many are cross referenced. It may have been the Oxford history of medieval europe…

Remember from basic logic: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have a couple sources that conclusively say there was another schism and it shows where communion wasn’t restored between Rome and Constantinople until Stephen I of Constantinople’s successor.

Not so sure it needs it’s own designation. Photian Schism with an interregnum would be own reference, but even then it was only one period in Constantinople being in Schism, not counting the Arians (55 years), St John Chrysostom (11 years), Acacian (35 years), Monothelitism (41 years), or Iconoclasm (61 years).

I wonder what Roman Catholics make of the time when Byzantine Emperors and the Exarch of Ravenna exerted the same control (the power as civil authority to confirm episcopal elections) over the papacy.

Depending on the exact circumstances, either non consequential, illicit or invalid. Do we believe that Caesar has the right to create Patriarchates where he will? Does he have the right to determine Church hierarchy on his own? Of course not. Does he have a voice? Certainly the secular power has imposed it’s will in many places… but that doesn’t make it right. Take my statement in context it was made : rebuttal and illustration that the Holy Roman Emperor’s manipulations were hardly unique to the Roman Church and specifically Constantinople’s Patriarchal Throne was far more overt and frequent.

How odd though, because St. Photius in his personal writings never claimed that he wished to be the Patriarch of Constantinople. In fact, he seemed to indicate the opposite, that he felt as if the position had been thrust upon him. How consistent is that with him having “churlish motivations”?

It’s inconsistent only if you believe such an absurd claim (which isn’t used very often!). If he didn’t want to be Patriarch, he might have refused the Emperor’s demand to illegally intrude on Ignatius, who I believe is in the Roman Martyrology. He might have been an obedient

It is when there is no good proof that such motivations existed.

Especially when you refuse to see it.

Slander is also using scholarship which is outdated (i.e., the scholarship of Fortescue in the old Catholic Encyclopedia) in order to impugn the memory of a great man. Fr. Dvornik’s study of the matter, though not entirely without fault, put to rest many myths surrounding the person of St. Photius.

The Encyclopedia’s sources are at least cited and I obviously mitigate a man’s positive attributes with the negatives instead of whitewashing them and pretending they don’t exist. I would certainly admit that he was significant, though I don’t find his overall effect on history to be positive. His polemics themselves were mostly forgotten even in the east as even a hundred years later the eastern arguments almost entirely neglect any of the barest mention of filioque, much less Photius’ more ridiculous and petty assertions and instead focus on azyme bread (which was more a result of the Armenian difficulties they were having at the time than any thing to do with the Roman Church itself.

Says who? And since when did objective authority rest on someone’s opinion of it?

Clearly they would never recognize it just like the vast majority of Roman Catholic’s don’t even know who the Patriarch of Constantinople was a thousand years ago, much less care of his opinions on the details of our own Liturgy. The net effect when other bishops follow their respective Patriarchs is of course, Schism… and the oddball secular powers who took the justification to do what they willed anyway.

 

[LionHeart777]

Neither the Eastern Patriarchs nor the 7 Ecumenical Councils recognized the excessive claims of papal authority. Even in the case of St. Photius, a council was held to remove him, the Council of Constantinople of 869 which was repudiated by the Council of Constantinople of 879 which was accepted by Pope John VIII.
The 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicea I in 325 actually limited the authority of the Bishop of Rome to the West, and made it clear that he had no authority over Alexandria or Antioch.
The 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon recognized Constantinople as having equal rank with Rome.
The 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II of 553, met despite Pope Vilgillus’ papal decree forbidding the council to meet. The council also threatened to excommunicate Pope Vigillus unless he accepted its decrees which he finally did.
The 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680 declared Pope Honarius an heretic.
The Council of Constantinople of 869 rejected the demand of the papal legates that the council accept the authority of the Pope to define the doctrine of the Church arguing instead that such authority only belonged to all 5 Patriarchs acting together.
An honest look at history, shows very clearly that whatever claims were made by Rome, the East never accepted them and always considered the Pope subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council.
It is not possible to reconcile papalism with the canons of the Ecumenical Councils which clearly establish the principle of local self-rule by independent Patriarchates.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Fr. Morris,

I think many honest people have examined history and have come to a different conclusion than you have. Much could be/has been written about each of these things you bring up; I will illustrate by just diving into the issue of Canon XVIII of Chalcedon. I think people reading your post would benefit by checking into some of the history themselves.

The Anglican S. Herbert Scott writes: “When the archdeacon Aetius brought forward the question of the privileges of the [c]hurch of Constantinople, the [Papal] legates said that that question was not one which came in the terms of their commission, and withdrew, and the ‘Senate’ did the same ; and most of the [Council] Fathers had already left for home.” (Scott, pg. 193.) Scott says that only 84 of the 630 members signed Canon 28, but another source says: “only about 150 bishops out of the original 600 could be induced to sign [Note: Rivington made an error here. The correct number is 192 signatories.], and that St. Leo could fearlessly call it an ‘extorted subscription,’ even after some few at the session had denied that they were compelled to subscribe. St. Leo knew that his legates were right in their estimate of the kind of influence that had been brought to bear upon these subservient bishops.” (Rivington)

St. Leo had told his Legates in advance in the papal order:
“’Do not allow anyone to infringe in anything the ordinance of the holy fathers (sc. Nicaea). Protect on every occasion the dignity of our Person which you represent. And if any people, trusting to the glory of their cities, wish to usurp anything, resist them with all necessary resolution.’” (Scott, pg. 196)

“The legates make a strong protest [to what was done by the Council Fathers who were left regarding the XVIIIth Canon they wrote]: ‘The Apostolic See ought not to be humiliated in our presence. That is why we beg you to annul the measures which were taken yesterday in our absence against the ordinances of the canons. For want of which we ask that our opposition be inserted in these Acts. We shall know then what we must report to him who is the pope of the Universal Church, and he it is who himself will judge of the injury done to his see and of the overthrow of the canons.’” (Scott, pg. 197) Scott also points out that Canon XVIII “…is really only concerned with the patriarchal position of Rome, not its Primacy. 16” His footnote #16 (Milman, Hist. of Lat. Christy., Book II, chap. V,) notes in part that most of the prelates who signed this Canon were from around the diocese of Constantinople.

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

And we know that Pope St. Leo flat out rejected Canon XVIII of Chalcedon. He wrote to the Empress Pulcheria: “’As for the resolution which is contrary to the Nicene Decree,* I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter*.’” (Scott pg. 198)

The Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople wrote the following regarding Canon 28 to Pope St. Leo:

“‘As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.’ (To Pope Leo, Ep 132 [on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon], 451 A.D.)”

Source: catholic-legate.com/Apolo…ThePapacy.aspx

Also worth citing is an extant citation attributed to St. Methodius. I will lett Scott introduce it:

“Prof. d’Herbingy quotes the Orthodox Russian writer, A. Pavlov, who discovered a Slav MS. Of the twelfth century and published the text in the Vizantiiskii Vremennik of 1897 (t. iv, pp. 150-2) which gives an account of the answer of S. Methodius, the Byzantine apostle of the Slavs, about this XVIIIth Canon:

‘It is necessary to know that this decision was not accepted by the blessed Pope Leo. . . . And it is not true, as this canon affirms, that the holy fathers have accorded the primacy and honour to old Rome because it was the capital of the empire. But it is from on high that it began, it is of grave divine that this primacy has derived its origin. Peter, the most exalted of the apostles, heard from the mouth of our Lord these words (Matt. xvi. 17). This is why he possesses among the hierarchs pre-eminent rank and the first see. It is notorious, besides, that, although emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravenna, and that their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the primacy. For the dignity and the pre-eminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favour of civil power, but by Divine choice and by apostolic authority. . . . How would it be possible, because of an earthly emperor, to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith. Immovable, indeed, unto the end are the privileges of old Rome. So, in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy ecumenical councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, ever ecumenical council is non-existent and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the council.’

Methodius, the writer, is a Byzantine, and he concludes:

‘If there is anyone who appears opposed to what we say, let him examine well what the same most holy Pope Leo wrote to Marcian and Pulcheria of pious memory, what he wrote also to the Bishop of Constantinople, the above-named Anatolius and he will be convinced of the truth of these things.’” (Pgs. 198-199)

Luke Rivington writes about Canon XVIII and the Fathers who wrote it: “It was not true, as they asserted, that the Fathers (if the Nicene Fathers were meant) ‘gave’ her (patriarchal [16]) privileges to the See of Rome; they only recognised what was already ancient. It was not true that what the Nicene Fathers recognised as ancient custom was due to the secular position of the See of Rome. Her privileges were settled by herself as See o[f] St. Peter. It was not true that the Fathers of Constantinople had bestowed anything in the way of jurisdiction, but merely the second rank in the way of honorary precedence. It was not true that Constantinople had any right over Pontus, Thrace, and Asia Minor.”

Sources:

“The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928

Luke Rivington, “The Primitive Church and the See of Peter”, from: mwt.net/~lnpalm/byzantin.htm

 

[LionHeart777]

While I agree with your argument. I would say the logic goes both ways. Appealing to the authority of Rome does not imply in any way, shape, or form, that one is under the authority of Rome - an argument often made by Catholic apologists.

Hi Nine_Two,

I was thinking about this earlier and have to admit that I’m not feeling like the sharpest tool in the shed right now. But my thoughts are that, generally and logically speaking, if one appeals to an authority, while they themselves need not be under that authority, the one or one’s whom they are trying to influence/convince to heed that authority would be under it, or else why appeal to it in the first place?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Claims of ancient Roman Popes to authority are meaningless if the rest of the Church did not accept them. The historical record is that the rest of the Church did not, but instead established the principle of local self-rule without reference to Rome.

Whether or not Rome accepted canon 28 of Chalcedon is irrelevant. Like all other Patriarchates, Rome was subject to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils. Canon 28 shows that the Eastern Church did not recognize Rome as having special authority or the power to intervene in the eternal affairs of the Patriarchates. At the very least it shows that this very important council did not recognize Rome as possessing universal jurisdiction over the whole Church. Rome based its objection Canon 28 of Chalcedon on the argument that it changed the organization of the Church established by the 1st Ecumenical Council. Let us look at some of the canons of the 1st Ecumenical Council and the Council of Antioch in 341 that affirm local self-rule without any reference to any universal jurisdiction of Rome.

Canon IV.
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the
province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of
distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.

Notice that there is no reference requiring Rome to approve the election of Bishops, which was to be done locally.

Canon VI
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Ancient Epitome of Canon VI.
The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As
also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan,let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force.

Notice that the canon confirms the authority of the local Metropolitans in their own Metropolinate. Rome is given no authority over Alexandria or Antioch. Instead, the canon limits the authority of Rome to the areas already under Roman jurisdiction as is shown by the ancient epitome of the canon. Thus the 1st Ecumenical Council does not recognize universal Roman authority.

The provincial organization of the Church was established by the Council of Antioch in Encaeiis in 341.

Canon IX.
It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the
metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon IX.
Bishops should be bound to the opinion of the metropolitan, and nothing should they do
without his knowledge except only such things as have reference to the diocese of each, and let them ordain men free from blame.

This Council was recognized by the Ecumenical Councils, thereby giving its canons ecumenical authority. Notice that once again no special authority is given to Rome, but the principle of local self-government is affirmed. Notice also that the authority of the local Metropolitan is limited because he is bound to follow the will of the other Bishops of the province.

Archpriest John W. Morris
CONTINUED BELOW