Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[frjohnmorris]

How is it a loaded question? Isn’t it the position of the Orthodox that accepting it would be incorrect? That the Assyrian Church of the East and the PNCC share Rome’s understanding, doesn’t really shed light on the nature of the disagreement between Rome and the EO - does it?

An Orthodox Christian who receives any Sacrament outside of the Orthodox Church must come to Confession before they are allowed to receive Communion again in the Orthodox Church. We do not give Communion to non-Orthodox. Because of the principle of economy, with the Bishop’s permission we could make an exception for Oriental Orthodox who are living in an area where there is no Oriental Orthodox Church. During Communism, the Russian Orthodox Church allowed Roman Catholics to receive Communion if they were living in an area where there was no Catholic Church.
It has nothing to do with Eucharistic theology. It is a matter of Communion between Churches. The Eastern Orthodox Church is not in Communion with the Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, or Protestant Churches.
If a non-Orthodox Christian asks for a prayer and blessing, say in the hospital, I certainly would give it.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

And I’m telling you, Constantinople can’t undo Jerusalem as an ancient see.

Constantinople had nothing to do with it. After the Jewish revolts of 70 and 120 AD, the Christian community if Jerusalem was small that the Church in Jerusalem was under the Bishop Caesarea. At the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, Jerusalem was made a Patriarchate because after St. Constantine the Church in Jerusalem grew and regained its old status, but Jerusalem ranked 5th after Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. Today Jerusalem ranks 4th after Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

I enjoyed the recent posts from #1069 -1095 It also my understanding as per Catholic teaching that we as Catholic’s are not to recieve communion with Churches who are not in union with Rome. Also our seperate breatherns are not to recieve communion in Catholic Churches. I do know that there have been times when they have and while I am not sure about it, I think that there was some special reason; maybe given by the local bishop or priest, because hte bishop granted it for some reason. I also know that some priests have given communion when they were not suposed to.

 

[frjohnmorris]

It seems to disturb you that the EO have a different view of the sacraments than the RC do. You seem to think they should not. What is it you think they believe about the Eucharist that they do not have a right to believe?

I am not sure that EOs and RCs have a significantly different view of the Sacraments. cs. However, there is one major difference. We always Chrismate (Confirm) someone immediately after their Baptism, and give even infants Communion. To us the Roman Catholic practice of First Communion given before Confirmation is putting the Sacraments out of their proper order. A person must be Chrismated before they can receive Communion. Baptism, Chrismation, and Communion together constitute the entrance Rite into the Church.
We do not give the Eucharist to RCs because the are not in Communion with the Orthodox Church. For the same reason EOs are not allowed to receive Communion outside of the Orthodox Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[steve_b]

Irrelevant, for the ranking of Jerusalem as a patriarchate did not occur until the Council of Chalcedon, and it only occurred in the disputed canon 28. Before that, not only was Jerusalem not a patriarchate, but it was treated as inferior to the local metropolitan bishop, as can be seen with the Nicene canon which treats the matter of Jerusalem.

Irrelevant? Wait a minute.

Looking at the ranking of sees Before and after Constantinople

(BC) before Constantinople

1. • Rome
   • Alexandria
   • Antioch
   • Jerusalem
   (AC) After Constantinople
   
   1. • Rome
      • Constantinople
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem
      What changed?
      • Constantinople took 2nd spot behind Rome
      • Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were put behind Constantinople, moving each see down one spot. Can we hear a holy COW to that one?
      • The patriarchal system was introduced by the East to equalize authority among 5 sees, (pentarchy) and move chief authority away from Rome the chair of Peter. Another holy COW!!!
      No Roman Pontiff ever accepted this 1st among equals notion or the pentarchy
      1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
      2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.
      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
      
      And thus (as I said earlier) the seeds of schism were planted…along with other consequences and intrigues
      
      Re: Constantinople: sequence of events capsulized
      
      -]Byzantium/-] , -]New Rome /-] , -]Constantinople/-] , -]Christianity/-] , Istanbul & Muslim

 

[steve_b]

Constantinople had nothing to do with it. After the Jewish revolts of 70 and 120 AD, the Christian community if Jerusalem was small that the Church in Jerusalem was under the Bishop Caesarea. At the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, Jerusalem was made a Patriarchate because after St. Constantine the Church in Jerusalem grew and regained its old status, but Jerusalem ranked 5th after Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. Today Jerusalem ranks 4th after Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch.

Archpriest John W. Morris

technically Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Irrelevant? Wait a minute.

Looking at the ranking of sees Before and after Constantinople

(BC) before Constantinople

1. • Rome
   • Alexandria
   • Antioch
   • Jerusalem
   (AC) After Constantinople
   
   1. • Rome
      • Constantinople
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem
      What changed?
      • Constantinople took 2nd spot behind Rome
      • Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were put behind Constantinople, moving each see down one spot. Can we hear a holy COW to that one?
      • The patriarchal system was introduced by the East to equalize authority among 5 sees, (pentarchy) and move chief authority away from Rome the chair of Peter.
      No Roman Pontiff ever accepted this 1st among equals notion or the pentarchy
      1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
      2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.
      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
      
      And thus (as I said earlier) the seeds of schism were planted…along with other consequences and intrigues
      
      Re: Constantinople: sequence of events capsulized
      
      -]Byzantium/-] , -]New Rome /-] , -]Constantinople/-] , -]Christianity/-] , Istanbul & Muslim

1. 1. 
      There was no official ranking until after the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325. In the East the ranking was based on the status of the see city, not its Apostolic foundations. When Constantinople became the new capital of the Roman Empire, it was only natural that it be given equal status to the old capital of the Empire. The 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constntinople I in 381 gave Constantinople 2 rank. The 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451 gave Constantinople equal rank with Rome. These ranks were purely honorific. The canons also prevented one Patriarch from interfering in the eternal affairs of another Patriarch.
      No Roman Pope ever exercised authority over the Eastern Patriarchates. His authority was limited to the West by canon VI of the 1st Council of Nicaea in 325. Only slowly did the Popes begin to claim authority over the Eastern Patriarchates. The firs time that Rome claimed authority over Constantinople was during the Patriarchate of St. Photius. Even then the Pope appealed to a council for support of his decision to refuse to recognize St. Photius. Pope Nicholas I lacked the authority to act on his own. Historically, the Bishop of Rome did not exercise universal jurisdiction during the age of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Only an Ecumenical Council representing the entire Church had such authority, not the Pope. That is not a matter of opinion. That is a matter of historical fact.
      
      Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

technically Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore.

Constantinople certainly does exist. Just because the Turks changed the name of the city after the First World War does not mean that the city and Ecumenical Patriarchate does not exist. Rome certainly treats the Ecumenical Patriarch as existing. Pope Benedict XVI went to Istanbul to meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch. The Ecumenical Patriarch attended the installation of Pope Francis.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

§3 and §4 together comprise pastoral provision. The distinction between the sections is that §3 refers to those who are members of Churches that formally accept the doctrine of the Real Presence. §4 refers to those Christians whose communities do not formally accept the doctrine of the Real Presence, but the individual Christian might happen to accept the Catholic doctrine nonetheless.

Note also the term “properly disposed.” That is a loaded term. A Christian from an apostolic Church not in the Catholic communion is expected to know his/her local Church’s law against intercommunion. If that Christian knows it, he/she will not approach the Catholic Eucharist (in effect, that Christian is not “properly disposed” because he/she knows it is a sin to receive the Eucharist from a minister not in his/her Church’s communion). But many probably innocently don’t know their own Church’s law on the matter, and the reality is often not reflected in the theory. Pastoral provision (especially regarding the reception of the Eucharist) occurs between the Churches in circumstances that are more sometimes more broad than what is formally contained in the laws. Among the apostolic Churches in the Middle East, pastoral provision is rather normal because of their common situation. But that situation does not exist in Western countries. Christians from the Middle East immigrating to a Western country might innocently commune in a Church not in his/her own ecclesiastical communion, maybe unaware that the pastoral provisions present in the Middle East because of the widespread persecution, does not exist in the Western countries. In the mid-20th century, the same sort of pastoral provision regularly occurred between Churches in countries under communist rule.

Blessings,
Marduk

That is not quite how I read the provisions of canon law. Note the difference between Canon 844 §3 and §4. The pastoral provision for rare, extenuating circumstances is §4. I was referring to §3. The provision in §3 merely requires that the Orthodox seeks the sacrament of his own accord and is properly disposed. Members of other churches may receive the sacraments under rare, extenuating circumstances (§4). Am I misrepresenting these provisions?

 

[Kylominch]

True

That too.

saying a creed doesn’t mean one believes in what they are saying.

For example,

it seems silly to me for a protestant no matter the stripe to say the Nicene creed, “I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” while standing in some “denominational assembly” … true? No Protestant assembly no matter the stripe or name is a “Church”, it’s certainly not “One”, it’s not “Catholic”, and it’s not “Apostolic”. So what the heck are they saying they believe?

It’s a highly restrictive exception. Usually in the case where death is emminent or is expected.

Do you have a name?

Think about that. No Protestant has valid holy orders. Their chance of making a valid Eucharist happen is no better than me saying the words of consecration.

If Protestants really believed they wouldn’t be Protestant any longer they’d be Catholic. Until there is full union there is no communion. There must be unity in commuity

that’s confusing too many subjects in a confusing way, into one paragraph. Also bringing Protestants into this discussion derails the topic.

Protestants really believe. What bigotry is this? Others brought Protestants here that they don’t share the faith. I think it is not accurate. They don’t have fullness of faith like church but they have true faith not a different faith, non Christi’s faith. Do you think church is wrong in calling them Christians? It is only their groups that church rejects, because they are not churches, but not the Christians in those groups. Their baptism is true like yours and they are Christians not people of different faith. It is not just death but reasons bishop thinks is serious. I forgot the name of Lutheran but I read in catholic blog about it. Protestants believe in one church of all believers but don’t believe it is Catholic Church or institution. Orthodox eastern believe it is them not Catholic Church but that does not mean they have non Christian faith. Why Protestants? They are far than orthodox to us but still in the faith. Stop insulting them like they deny creed. They believe in one God, trinity, Jesus life and death, church and eternal life. This is the essential faith. They don’t have non Christian faith but is like people want to say they have different faith more essential than creed?

 

[mardukm]

OK, but yet the CCEO itself was (a) imposed by Rome

No it wasn’t.

and (b) contains the following. How can one possibly interpret this other than the way it’s written, i.e, all power ultimately resides in Rome? It’s a part of the point of my previous post.

I’m not sure what you feel is wrong with this excerpt from the CCEO. There are some canons I personally feel should be altogether removed (I understand such canons were instituted due to the state of schism with our Eastern/Oriental brethren, but they have no place in a reunited Church), but this is not one of them. I’ve explained some of it in the Petrine Views thread. I’m thinking of starting a thread, if I have the time, regarding the EEOC - its origins, and the proper understanding of its provisions on the Supreme authority in the Church.

Maybe we can have a good discussion in that thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

This is extremely odd history. Slanted to the point of being totally one-sided. Here are some additional points that give balance.

In the events of the middle 1000’s, the Patriarch was the odd man out. He was hostile to the Emperor and eventually was sent packing, sadly not soon enough.
The Pope and Emperor were like minded in resisting the Normans, but were defeated. The proximate cause of the the dispatch of Humbertus was the grotesque desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, supported by Cerularius, over that giant issue, azymes, which carried over from Byzantine polemics against the Armenians - and vice versa.
Were there clear canonical reasons and processes for closing the Latin churches, or was this just political maneuvering as with the azyme issue?
The bull of excommunication has been very cutely translated to make Humbertus look foolish, but that also is largely polemics.
The Emperor received the Cardinal graciously - again the Patriarch was the odd man out.
Is there any foundation for the idea that the Emperor knew that the legates were acting without authority after the death of the pope who dispatched them? If so, why the nuclear response to a paper tiger? A response that was not respected by the other Eastern Patriarchates that were controlled by the EP.

As to the Crusades:
After Manizikert it was all over for Byzantines, unless they could get help and recover Anatolia.
The crusaders were invited and put their lives and fortunes on the line to support the Byzantines, but were treated with duplicity and treachery by them - not only by the stridently anti-western faction that held control from time to time, but in general: the Byzantines were always playing both sides.
The installation of a Latin Patriarch into a vacant see in Jerusalem was not irregular given Latin control of the region, the common role of the civil authorities in authorizing episcopal appointments in the East, and the large influx of Latin clergy. The situation in Antioch was different, but then again, not much can be said to canonically support, the subsequent of appointment by the EP of Greeks, resident in Constantinople as Antiochian Patriarchs - an irregularity that prevailed until recent times, and was a factor in the lawful reunion of the church of Antioch with Rome in the 1700’s.
In the fourth Crusade, the Crusaders were invited into Constantinople by a claimant to the Emperor’s throne, who promised support for the campaign to Egypt. The Pope had already excommunicated the group after they sacked a Latin town for Venice to get the financial support for the mission. The campaign was successful, but the payoff was not received - the anti-western faction (recently behind the massacre of many thousands of Westerners, including women and children) murdered the new emperor and reneged on the deal. The Crusaders collected. War is hell. Too bad that they didn’t resume the campaign, but it’s not hard to see why they thought it a good idea to stay.

Again, these points are added for some balance. The one-sided view of Orthodox history seems to recount every sin against the East as though it happened yesterday, but rarely (DB Hart, a notable exception) seems to give a sober account of its own culpability.

What Fr Taft says.

It is rather insulting to refer to Patriarch Michael I as Cerularius. I have read no historical account of the schism that mentions any sacrilege committed by the Eastern Orthodox against the Roman Catholic Eucharist. As the Bishop with authority in Constantinople Patriarch Michael had a canonical right to close the Latin Churches in Constantinople. Despite his objections to certain Western practices Patriarch Michael did not break Communion with Rome. Through Cardinal Humbert, Rome broke Communion with the Constantinople. When the Latin Crusaders forced out the Orthodox Bishops in the cities they took, the West extended the break in Communion to include the entire Eastern Orthodox Church. Read Runciman’s work on the schism. He is the most respected historian on this subject.
There were already Eastern Orthodox Bishops in the cities taken by the Crusaders. The Crusaders threw the Eastern Bishops from their sees and replaced them with Latin Bishops something they had no right to do. The understanding was that the Crusaders went to help restore rule to the Emperor in the areas they took. They were not allowed passage through the Byzantine Empire to establish Crusader sates in areas that previously had belonged to the Empire.
Despite the conflicts of the past, as things are today, there is no way that the Eastern Orthodox Church is going to accept the papal claims to universal jurisdiction. Someone quoted the canon law that Rome applies to the Eastern Catholics. There is no way that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates will submit to such papal domination.
I personally believe that it is a terrible mistake to give such power to one man. The claims of modern Pope cannot be supported historically. The Popes exercised no such authority during the age of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, as an examination the canons and decrees of the 7 Ecumenical Councils shows. There is not a single canon or decree that gives such authority to the Bishop of Rome from any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. If Rome had had such authority, it would have been accepted by the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

No it wasn’t.

Well, I hate to paraphrase Judge Judy but … it didn’t come from the Tooth Fairy.

I’m not sure what you feel is wrong with this excerpt from the CCEO. There are some canons I personally feel should be altogether removed (I understand such canons were instituted due to the state of schism with our Eastern/Oriental brethren, but they have no place in a reunited Church), but this is not one of them. I’ve explained some of it in the Petrine Views thread.

Let me adjust the question: what’s right with them? You’re correct, though, it does go with “Petrine Views” and this, if you will recall, is one of the areas where we’ve sparred over the years. As much as I agree with you on the “High Petrine view” in theory, I have, do, and will continue to say that it just doesn’t match the reality on the ground. Hence I have major problems with that entire section of the CCEO.

I’m thinking of starting a thread, if I have the time, regarding the EEOC - its origins, and the proper understanding of its provisions on the Supreme authority in the Church.

Maybe we can have a good discussion in that thread.

Not likely but we’ll see.

 

[steve_b]

There was no official ranking until after the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325. In the East the ranking was based on the status of the see city, not its Apostolic foundations. When Constantinople became the new capital of the Roman Empire, it was only natural that it be given equal status to the old capital of the Empire.

Rome the see, wasn’t listed 1st because Rome is the capital of the empire and where the emperor resided, it’s listed 1st because the Church of Rome is Peter’s see.
fr:

The 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constntinople I in 381 gave Constantinople 2 rank. The 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451 gave Constantinople equal rank with Rome. These ranks were purely honorific. The canons also prevented one Patriarch from interfering in the eternal affairs of another Patriarch.

Why do all this for Constantinople? When it was Byzantium, it wasn’t an ancient see.
fr:

No Roman Pope ever exercised authority over the Eastern Patriarchates.

There WERE no patriarchates in the beginning. Prior to Byzantium becomming Constantinople, you know already various ECF’s had to say re: Rome and all the other Churches.
fr:

His authority was limited to the West by canon VI of the 1st Council of Nicaea in 325.

There was an understanding of order, but the Bp of Rome was not limited as the other bishops were.
fr:

Only slowly did the Popes begin to claim authority over the Eastern Patriarchates. The firs time that Rome claimed authority over Constantinople was during the Patriarchate of St. Photius. Even then the Pope appealed to a council for support of his decision to refuse to recognize St. Photius. Pope Nicholas I lacked the authority to act on his own. Historically, the Bishop of Rome did not exercise universal jurisdiction during the age of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Only an Ecumenical Council representing the entire Church had such authority, not the Pope. That is not a matter of opinion. That is a matter of historical fact.

Archpriest John W. Morris

You skipped over alot of history there.

Prior to Constantinople

• ~250 a.d. "to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access*."Cyprian***Epistle 54 newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm
• ~180 a.d. All must agree with Rome ( Church of Rome) [Irenaeus Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3]Chapter 3
• ~107 a.d. Rome (the Church) hold the presidency Ignatius letter to the Church of Rome
• ~80 a.d. Clement of Rome settles sedition among bishops in Corinth Greece

 

[steve_b]

Protestants really believe. What bigotry is this? Others brought Protestants here that they don’t share the faith. I think it is not accurate. They don’t have fullness of faith like church but they have true faith not a different faith, non Christi’s faith. Do you think church is wrong in calling them Christians? It is only their groups that church rejects, because they are not churches, but not the Christians in those groups. Their baptism is true like yours and they are Christians not people of different faith. It is not just death but reasons bishop thinks is serious. I forgot the name of Lutheran but I read in catholic blog about it. Protestants believe in one church of all believers but don’t believe it is Catholic Church or institution. Orthodox eastern believe it is them not Catholic Church but that does not mean they have non Christian faith. Why Protestants? They are far than orthodox to us but still in the faith. Stop insulting them like they deny creed. They believe in one God, trinity, Jesus life and death, church and eternal life. This is the essential faith. They don’t have non Christian faith but is like people want to say they have different faith more essential than creed?

Protestantism doesn’t belong on this thread.

 

[steve_b]

Constantinople certainly does exist. Just because the Turks changed the name of the city after the First World War does not mean that the city and Ecumenical Patriarchate does not exist. Rome certainly treats the Ecumenical Patriarch as existing. Pope Benedict XVI went to Istanbul to meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch. The Ecumenical Patriarch attended the installation of Pope Francis.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I could be wrong on this but my understanding is, mail that is addressed “Constantinople” doesn’t get delivered via normal Turkish mail carriers.

 

[dzheremi]

Well that’s a little silly, Steve B. If I wanted to make sure that my letter gets delivered to the Vatican, would I be better off addressing it to “Vatican City” or to “The Holy See”? The mail-carrier would probably know what I mean (especially if the Vatican is on his regular route), but it’d be better addressed to Vatican City. This doesn’t mean that if I refer to it as “The Holy See” instead, suddenly Vatican City disappears or something.

 

[malphono]

Well that’s a little silly, Steve B. If I wanted to make sure that my letter gets delivered to the Vatican, would I be better off addressing it to “Vatican City” or to “The Holy See”? The mail-carrier would probably know what I mean (especially if the Vatican is on his regular route), but it’d be better addressed to Vatican City. This doesn’t mean that if I refer to it as “The Holy See” instead, suddenly Vatican City disappears or something.

If you addressed an envelope with destination “The Holy See” I’d bet it would end up in the USPS dead letter office.

 

[josie_L]

There was no official ranking until after the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325. In the East the ranking was based on the status of the see city, not its Apostolic foundations. When Constantinople became the new capital of the Roman Empire, it was only natural that it be given equal status to the old capital of the Empire. The 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constntinople I in 381 gave Constantinople 2 rank. The 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451 gave Constantinople equal rank with Rome. These ranks were purely honorific. The canons also prevented one Patriarch from interfering in the eternal affairs of another Patriarch.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Just wanted to say that the second ecumenical council of Constantinople was not regarded as ecumenical/universal until Chalcedon, that is, the council of Constantinople was regional, and as such, did not affect the whole Church. And if I remember correctly, the 28th canon of Chalcedon (making Constantinople second in rank above that of Antioch and Alexandria, thus contradicting Nicea) was accepted by a rump element of the synod (this was the 15th session by then many bishops were no longer present), and was rejected by the pope.

This last canon provoked another session of the council, the sixteenth, held on 1 November.** The papal legates protested therein against this canon, alleging that they had special instructions from Pope Leo on that subject, that the canon violated the prerogatives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and was contrary to the canons (vi, vii) of the Council of Nicaea. **Their protests, however, were not listened to; and the council persisted in retaining this canon in its Acts. With this incident the Council of Chalcedon was closed.

At the closing of the sessions the council wrote a letter to Pope Leo I, in which the Fathers informed him of what had been done; thanked him for the exposition of Christian Faith contained in his dogmatic epistle; spoke of his legates as having presided over them in his name; and asked for the ratification of the disciplinary matters enacted, particularly canon 28. This letter was handed to the papal legates, who departed for Rome soon after the last session of the council. Similar letters were written to Pope Leo in December by Emperor Marcian and Anatolius of Constantinople. In reply Pope Leo protested most energetically against canon xxviii and declared it null and void as being against the prerogatives of Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and against the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. Like protests were contained in the letters written 22 May, 452, to Emperor Marcian, Empress Pulcheria, and Anatolius of Constantinople. Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith. This approval was contained in letters written 21 March, 453, to the bishops who took part in the council; hence the Council of Chalcedon, at least as to the first six sessions, became an ecumenical synod, and was considered as such by all Christians, both in the time of Pope Leo and after him.

newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm

The Apostolic see of Rome was not given its rank because of its ranking in the world, and if you should disagree, then I suggest you read this (an excerpt from the council of Ephesus):

Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices,(1) ye joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations.** For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle.** And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that ye give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination.

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince ( exarkos ) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation ( qemelios ) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. **The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, **and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.asp

I can think of other fathers (both Eastern and Western) that attest to the fact that the primacy of Rome had everything to do with Peter. Can you think of any fathers that point to Rome’s primacy for other reasons?

 

[Peter_J]

Protestantism doesn’t belong on this thread.

Well this is interesting. You write a post that talks about protestants over and over, and then when someone responds to it you say “Protestantism doesn’t belong on this thread.”

It is April Fool’s Day already?