Council Nicea, the Papacy, and Protestantism

[patricius79]

how do non-Catholics understand the Council of Nicea?

does it disprove the Catholic idea of Roman Primacy as some say?

Council of Nicaea Canon 6.

“Let the ancient usage throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis be strictly adhered to, so that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these; since this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome. In like manner, as regards Antioch and the other provinces, let each church retain its special privileges.” (Canon 6)

I take this as a typical patristic appeal to the authority of the Bishop of Rome who customarily recognized the authority of Alexandria in these regions.

as the EO scholar Schmemann writes:

Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement
philvaz.com/apologetics/num12.htm

catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

Loughlin writes about this Canon 6 of Nicea:

The first argument in favor of this interpretation is drawn from the grammatical structure of the text. (a) Take the pronoun (touto) and see what it obviously refers to. Surely to this subject in hand, to wit, the ancient privileges and boundaries of the Alexandrian Patriarchate. It seems impossible, without quibbling, to refer the (touto) to anything else. The only objection which can be urged against this is the (kai), also. What is the use of the (kai) in this interpretation? This objection is readily answered. The (kai) introduces a new and stronger reason why the Patriarch’s authority should be respected. “Let the custom prevail, not only because it is ancient, but especially because it has Roman usage in its favor;” or, “Since even the Roman Bishop constantly recognizes it.” (b) The word (sunethes), customary, is intelligible in our interpretation, but in the alternative it becomes absurd. “It is customary with the Bishop of Rome to recognize the Bishop of Alexandria as Patriarch,” is clear and sensible; but, “It is customary with the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch,” is devoid of sense.[THE SIXTH NICENE CANON AND THE PAPACY by Fr. James F. Loughlin, from the American Catholic Quarterly Review (volume 5, 1880), pages 220-239 – copyright (c) 1997, Classica Media, Inc]
philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm’

he then goes on in the next paragraph/s to prove that the Canon makes no sense in its historical context if read according to the common Protestant oral tradition in this matter

[sorry.

I should have clarified: I am responding especially to the idea that the Council of Nicea disproves the Catholic doctrine as to the jurisdictional primary of the Papacy]

 

[GaryTaylor]

Nicaea established the Primacy as the “proto” the first. Not sure there’s any denial of that.

The debate is First among equals which is acceptable to the Orthodox.

Peace

 

[patricius79]

sorry.

I should have clarified: I am responding especially to the idea that the Council of Nicea disproves the Catholic doctrine as to the jurisdictional primary of the Papacy

 

[JonNC]

how do non-Catholics understand the Council of Nicea?

does it disprove the Catholic idea of Roman Primacy as some say?

Council of Nicaea Canon 6.

“Let the ancient usage throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis be strictly adhered to, so that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these; since this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome. In like manner, as regards Antioch and the other provinces, let each church retain its special privileges.” (Canon 6)

I take this as a typical patristic appeal to the authority of the Bishop of Rome who customarily recognized the authority of Alexandria in these regions.

as the EO scholar Schmemann writes:

Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement
philvaz.com/apologetics/num12.htm

catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

Loughlin writes about this Canon 6 of Nicea:

The first argument in favor of this interpretation is drawn from the grammatical structure of the text. (a) Take the pronoun (touto) and see what it obviously refers to. Surely to this subject in hand, to wit, the ancient privileges and boundaries of the Alexandrian Patriarchate. It seems impossible, without quibbling, to refer the (touto) to anything else. The only objection which can be urged against this is the (kai), also. What is the use of the (kai) in this interpretation? This objection is readily answered. The (kai) introduces a new and stronger reason why the Patriarch’s authority should be respected. “Let the custom prevail, not only because it is ancient, but especially because it has Roman usage in its favor;” or, “Since even the Roman Bishop constantly recognizes it.” (b) The word (sunethes), customary, is intelligible in our interpretation, but in the alternative it becomes absurd. “It is customary with the Bishop of Rome to recognize the Bishop of Alexandria as Patriarch,” is clear and sensible; but, “It is customary with the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch,” is devoid of sense.[THE SIXTH NICENE CANON AND THE PAPACY by Fr. James F. Loughlin, from the American Catholic Quarterly Review (volume 5, 1880), pages 220-239 – copyright (c) 1997, Classica Media, Inc]
philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm’

he then goes on in the next paragraph/s to prove that the Canon makes no sense in its historical context if read according to the common Protestant oral tradition in this matter

[sorry.

I should have clarified: I am responding especially to the idea that the Council of Nicea disproves the Catholic doctrine as to the jurisdictional primary of the Papacy]

Hi Patricius,
Here is what the Lutheran Confessions says regarding the Council of Nicea, canon 6.

VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

13] VII. Again the Council of Nice determined that bishops should be elected by their own churches, in the presence of some neighboring bishop or of several. 14] The same was observed [for a long time, not only in the East, but] also in the West and in the Latin churches, as Cyprian and Augustine testify. For Cyprian says in his fourth letter to Cornelius: Accordingly, as regards the divine observance and apostolic practice, you must diligently keep and practice what is also observed among us and in almost all the provinces, that for celebrating ordination properly, whatsoever bishops of the same province live nearest should come together with the people for whom a pastor is being appointed, and the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who most fully know the life of each one, which we also have seen done among us at the ordination of our colleague Sabinus, that by the suffrage of the entire brotherhood, and by the judgment of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, the episcopate was conferred and hands laid on him.

15] Cyprian calls this custom a divine tradition and an apostolic observance, and affirms that it is observed in almost all the provinces.

Since, therefore, neither ordination nor confirmation was sought from a bishop of Rome in the greater part of the world in the Latin and Greek churches, it is sufficiently apparent that the churches did not then accord superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Cyprian is a good witness to the truth…

“But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven;” and by this, again in the gospel, when Christ breathed upon the Apostles alone, saying to them; “Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any mans sins, they shall be retained.” Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place” (Letter to Cyprian 75:16 [A.D. 255-256]).

The keys word being “superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome” Jon. Cyprian has it in perspective here. I just talked about this on another thread. There is no difference in authority of the Apostles.

God Bless, Gary

 

[jlhargus]

how do non-Catholics understand the Council of Nicea?

does it disprove the Catholic idea of Roman Primacy as some say?

Council of Nicaea Canon 6.

“Let the ancient usage throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis be strictly adhered to, so that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these; since this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome. In like manner, as regards Antioch and the other provinces, let each church retain its special privileges.” (Canon 6)

I take this as a typical patristic appeal to the authority of the Bishop of Rome who customarily recognized the authority of Alexandria in these regions.

as the EO scholar Schmemann writes:

Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement
philvaz.com/apologetics/num12.htm

catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

Loughlin writes about this Canon 6 of Nicea:

The first argument in favor of this interpretation is drawn from the grammatical structure of the text. (a) Take the pronoun (touto) and see what it obviously refers to. Surely to this subject in hand, to wit, the ancient privileges and boundaries of the Alexandrian Patriarchate. It seems impossible, without quibbling, to refer the (touto) to anything else. The only objection which can be urged against this is the (kai), also. What is the use of the (kai) in this interpretation? This objection is readily answered. The (kai) introduces a new and stronger reason why the Patriarch’s authority should be respected. “Let the custom prevail, not only because it is ancient, but especially because it has Roman usage in its favor;” or, “Since even the Roman Bishop constantly recognizes it.” (b) The word (sunethes), customary, is intelligible in our interpretation, but in the alternative it becomes absurd. “It is customary with the Bishop of Rome to recognize the Bishop of Alexandria as Patriarch,” is clear and sensible; but, “It is customary with the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch,” is devoid of sense.[THE SIXTH NICENE CANON AND THE PAPACY by Fr. James F. Loughlin, from the American Catholic Quarterly Review (volume 5, 1880), pages 220-239 – copyright (c) 1997, Classica Media, Inc]
philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm’

he then goes on in the next paragraph/s to prove that the Canon makes no sense in its historical context if read according to the common Protestant oral tradition in this matter

[sorry.

I should have clarified: I am responding especially to the idea that the Council of Nicea disproves the Catholic doctrine as to the jurisdictional primary of the Papacy]

add remarks

 

[JonNC]

Cyprian is a good witness to the truth…

“But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven;” and by this, again in the gospel, when Christ breathed upon the Apostles alone, saying to them; “Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any mans sins, they shall be retained.” Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place” (Letter to Cyprian 75:16 [A.D. 255-256]).

The keys word being “superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome” Jon. Cyprian has it in perspective here. I just talked about this on another thread. There is no difference in authority of the Apostles.

God Bless, Gary

Hi Gary,

Thanks for this. At the risk of sounding too agreeable, this does sound reasonable, but nothing like universal jurisdiction. How do you think the reformers got it wrong, or did they?

Jon

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Gary,

Cyprian is a good witness to the truth…

“But what is his error, and how great his blindness, who says that the remission of sins can be given in the synagogues of the heretics, and who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: “Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven;” and by this, again in the gospel, when Christ breathed upon the Apostles alone, saying to them; “Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any mans sins, they shall be retained.” Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place” (Letter to Cyprian 75:16 [A.D. 255-256]).

The keys word being “superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome” Jon. Cyprian has it in perspective here. I just talked about this on another thread. There is no difference in authority of the Apostles.

God Bless, Gary

That looks like a letter authored by someone else written to Cyprian. The quote doesn’t mention the bishop of Rome at all.

Also I do not see the phrase “superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome” in the quoted text. Could you helps us out with that? Please give us a fuller quote.

Thanks

 

[JonNC]

Hi Gary, That looks like a letter authored by someone else written to Cyprian. The quote doesn’t mention the bishop of Rome at all.

Also I do not see the phrase “superiority and domination to the bishop of Rome” in the quoted text. Could you helps us out with that? Please give us a fuller quote.

Thanks

Michael,
That quote is in the snippit I posted from the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.

Jon

 

[Hesychios]

Michael,
That quote is in the snippit I posted from the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.

Jon

Oh, I see.

 

[JonNC]

Oh, I see.

What’s your take on the little bit of the Treatise I’ve posted?

Jon

 

[Hesychios]

What’s your take on the little bit of the Treatise I’ve posted?

Jon

Interestingly, I never read this treatise before, but I came to roughly the same conclusion. It’s pretty obvious when one reads the canons.

 

[JonNC]

Interestingly, I never read this treatise before, but I came to roughly the same conclusion. It’s pretty obvious when one reads the canons.

Its from the Book of Concord. It has some dated polemics in it, but it can be found at the link.

bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

Jon

 

[patricius79]

Hi Patricius,
Here is what the Lutheran Confessions says regarding the Council of Nicea, canon 6.

VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose.

the Council of Nicea in Canon 6 appeals to the Bishop of Rome’s unique authority to confirm the jurisdiction of Alexandria and doesn’t try to take any authority from him. so I don’t follow what the Lutheran Confessions are saying.

please see the OP

that’s why before and after Nicea one finds the fathers recognizing the unique authority of Rome based on Succession from Simon Rock. and none of them arguing the Lutheran position, to my knowledge

hope you are well, John,

pat

 

[Harpazo]

the Council of Nicea in Canon 6 appeals to the Bishop of Rome’s unique authority to confirm the jurisdiction of Alexandria and doesn’t try to take any authority from him. so I don’t follow what the Lutheran Confessions are saying.

please see the OP

that’s why before and after Nicea one finds the fathers recognizing the unique authority of Rome based on Succession from Simon Rock. and none of them arguing the Lutheran position, to my knowledge

hope you are well, John,

pat

I don’t think that canon is saying what you think it says. Rather, it says that the Patriarch of Alexandria (who was called pope long before the Patriarch of Rome took the title) is to have jurisdiction over his See, just as the Bishop of Rome has over his. This would then mean that the Bishop of Rome did not operate with any supreme jurisdiction.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[patricius79]

Hi Patricius,
Here is what the Lutheran Confessions says regarding the Council of Nicea, canon 6.

VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose.
Jon

I’m just looking at this again and don’t understand the reasoning at all. the Sixth Canon seems to clearly assume that the Bishop of Rome already excercised the authority of Patriarch in that region.

and it seems to cleary assume that Rome’s unique authority would be accepted without question by Catholic Christians–in regard to the dispute as to Alexandria’s regional authority bounderies–as the article in the OP shows

so along with not understanding why the Lutheran Confessions say that Nicea took powers from Rome, I don’t understand why they think Papal authority began at Nicea

long before that we have fathers like Cyprian referring to Rome as the “principal Church from which priestly unity takes its source”

catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

 

[Hesychios]

the Council of Nicea in Canon 6 appeals to the Bishop of Rome’s unique authority to confirm the jurisdiction of Alexandria…

No it doesn’t

Please read it again.

These were the years when the church in the east was emerging from the catacomb existence of being an illegal sect. Constantine had liberated the western churches ten years before, and they were operating in the open.

The council fathers wanted to preserve the church structure that had existed before the liberation.

The canon itself refers to the churches of the Pentapolis/Cyrenaica (they were not Egyptians, they were Libyans) wanting their own synod, but their lands were governed in the political unit that included Egypt for many years. Likewise for many years they had been supervised by the bishops in Alexandria.



The fathers of the church gathered at Nicea decided that they should remain under the Metropolitan of Alexandria, in his synod which included all of Aegyptus.

“… the ancient order of things in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis must be maintained, to wit, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have authority over all these provinces …”

Then it goes on to say that all the other provinces should do likewise.

The example given was the Roman church, already legal for ten years, it continued to administer the churches of Suburbicarian Italy as it did before the liberation of Saint Constantine (Edict of Milan).

http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/cc86505/e...g,gif&ctf=0?format=jpg,png,gif&loadexternal=1

Concerning the forms of primacy belonging to some cities; and that bishops may not be created without the consent of the metropolitan

1. The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places, since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.

In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however, two or three, by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s rule (regula), the vote of the majority shall prevail.

Of equal interest is Canon 4, which specifically gives the local Metropolitan the right to confirm a bishop in his office.

Of the number needed to appoint a bishop

1. It is by all means desirable that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops of the province. But if this is difficult because of some pressing necessity or the length of the journey involved, let at least three come together and perform the ordination, but only after the absent bishops have taken part in the vote and given their written consent. But in each province the right of confirming the proceedings belongs to the Metropolitan bishop.

So we have one canon detailing the responsibility of the Metropolitan within the context of his synod, and another separating each Metropolitan See and synod along the then current political bounds.

The Apostolic Canons have something interesting to show us about this relationship between the priests, bishops and their Metropolitan:

Canon 1
Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.
Canon 2.
Let a presbyter, deacon, and the rest of the clergy, be ordained by one bishop,
…

Canon33
No foreign bishop, presbyter, or deacon, may be received without commendatory letters; and when they are produced let the persons be examined; and if they be preachers of godliness, let them be received. Otherwise, although you supply them with what they need, you must not receive them into communion, for many things are done surreptitiously.

Canon 34
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

Canon 35
Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits, in cities and places not subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so, without the consent of those persons who have authority over such cities and places, let him be deposed, and those also whom he has ordained.

In all of these places there were plenty of opportunities to spell out a special role for a superior bishop if there was one such. Even at Nicea, where the Roman church was mentioned, it was as an example. It never mentions that the Metropolitans are to submit in some way to the bishop of Rome, and the Roman church is not mentioned in the context of a special Petrine ministry. What it does say, is that all of the other provincial churches are to organize themselves in a like manner, for this was the custom of all the churches.

 

[GKC]

May I say that posts with maps are neat.

GKC

 

[patricius79]

I don’t think that canon is saying what you think it says. Rather, it says that the Patriarch of Alexandria (who was called pope long before the Patriarch of Rome took the title) is to have jurisdiction over his See, just as the Bishop of Rome has over his. This would then mean that the Bishop of Rome did not operate with any supreme jurisdiction.

In Christ,
Andrew

that is not what the Canon says. gramatically, “this” would refer to "letting the ancient usage throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis be strictly adhered to " so that the Bishop of Alexandria should have “jurisdiction over all these”

thus is testifies to the jurisdictional supremacy of the Successor of Simon Rock.

"Let the ancient usage throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis be strictly adhered to, so that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these; since this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome.

have you read Loughlin’s argument?:

philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

 

[JonNC]

So as not to appear to pile on, I’ll let Michael and Andrew continue as they seem to present the position that the Lutheran reformers offered, regarding primacy.

Jon