- Status
G
GKC
Guest
It varies (of course). I have seen an Anglican on this very board, take precisely the position that Hesychios does.GKC,
What position do Anglicans (generally) take regarding this issue?
Jon
I incline toward it, myself.* Primus inter pares* is a common Anglo-Catholic attitude.
GKC
P
patricius79
Guest
my apologies in advance for any historical blunders on my part due to my ingnorance.
but as I explained in my last post, I think the grammar does not fit that interpretation. rather it is a typical patristic appeal to the unique authority of Rome–in this case to confirm the authority of Alexandria over Meletus and the regions in question.
and also, as James Loughlin writes:
A second argument in support of our interpretation is elicited by considering the logical sequence of the passage. “This is the Roman Bishop’s custom,” is the Council’s reason for supporting the Alexandrian claims. If it is a reason, we must reverentially presume that it is a valid one. The ancient fabric of the Patriarchate was tottering; the Nicene Fathers prop it up with this clause, which, therefore, contains a reason strong enough to sustain a Patriarchate. Now imagine Meletius demanding wherefore Lycopolis should be subject to Alexandria? If the Council be made to answer: “Because Tusculum is subject to Rome,” would it not appear a “lame and impotent conclusion?” Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis must obey the Bishop of Alexandria; because this (not Egypt, etc., but Campania and the islands) is the Roman Pontiff’s custom! [17] Besides, granting that Rome’s possessing a Patriarchate were a valid reason why Alexandria also should have one, would it be a sufficient reason why the Alexandrian Patriarchate should extend just so far and no further? If so, then the following ratiocination must be considered sound: " Let the Alexandrian Bishop have jurisdiction over three provinces, because the Bishop of Rome is also a patriarch." Should any one rejoin that the reason why Alexandria happened to rule three provinces instead of two or four, was that this was the ancient custom, I answer that his reason is different from that of the Council, which tells us that “Alexandria shall rule these three because this is the Roman Bishop’s custom.”
philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm
moreover St. Cyril of Alexandria calls the Pope “Archbishop of the whole world” as I recall. and the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus likewise testifies to Papal Supremacy in Christ, as do later Ecumenical Councils
catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/orthopopes.html
likewise Patriarch St. Flavian of Constantinople appeals to the Pope during the Monophysite crisis:
When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference…but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. – Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449*
philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I will have to take issue with this assertion, as many of the later councils of the Church do quite the opposite. The Second and Third Councils of Constantinople are a complete embarrassment for the idea of Papal Supremacy. In Constantinople II, Pope Vigilius was anathematized for his support of the three chapters. He later redacted his defense of the three chapters and said that he was misled by the devil. In Constantinople III, Pope Honorius and Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople were anathematized posthumously. We also have the events of Ephesus and Chalcedon, where the Council of Ephesus refused to recognize the pope’s excommunication of Nestorius as being universal and instead welcomed him to the council in order to present his views, and the Council of Chalcedon refused to read Leo’s Tome until after they had drafted their own definition of what they believed to be Orthodox belief; only after they had established consensus did they read the Tome and exclaim, “Peter has spoken!” The idea that the Pope was supreme over the council or that he had some form of authority over the Ecumenical Councils is completely novel and not based on history.
P
patricius79
Guest
here were some other notes I made which support Loughlin’s interpretation of Canon 6
we have the fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople confiming the jurisdictional supremacy of Rome by submitting the Canon about Constantinople ranking next after Rome (Canon 3) to the Bishop of Rome for approval or rejection
philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm
this Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon says much to this effect elsewhere also: for example:
“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.” – Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3
philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm
(the Orthodox Church in America says that the Church is not built on Simon Rock, as I recall)
and likewise in the aftermath of Nicea we have St. Athanasius actually quoting Pope Julius’s explicit testimony to his supreme jurisdiction authority.
*The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. … Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. … What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35). *catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
and also St. Athanasius writing:
When I left Alexandria, I did not go to your brother’s headquarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was my only concern), I spent my time in public worship. (Defence before Constantius 4, NPNF 2, Vol. IV, 239)
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/12/st-athanasius-catholic.html
likewise the Council of Sardica and numerous other fathers can be cited, including St. Basil the Great
newadvent.org/fathers/3202070.htm
fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
we have the fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople confiming the jurisdictional supremacy of Rome by submitting the Canon about Constantinople ranking next after Rome (Canon 3) to the Bishop of Rome for approval or rejection
philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm
this Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon says much to this effect elsewhere also: for example:
“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.” – Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3
philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm
(the Orthodox Church in America says that the Church is not built on Simon Rock, as I recall)
and likewise in the aftermath of Nicea we have St. Athanasius actually quoting Pope Julius’s explicit testimony to his supreme jurisdiction authority.
*The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. … Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. … What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35). *catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
and also St. Athanasius writing:
When I left Alexandria, I did not go to your brother’s headquarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was my only concern), I spent my time in public worship. (Defence before Constantius 4, NPNF 2, Vol. IV, 239)
socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/12/st-athanasius-catholic.html
likewise the Council of Sardica and numerous other fathers can be cited, including St. Basil the Great
newadvent.org/fathers/3202070.htm
fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
P
patricius79
Guest
I can’t speak to some of that
and I can’t agree about Chalcedon.
*You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him …Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451*
philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm
and I think there is no way to determine which councils are ecumenical without believing in Papal Supremacy
philvaz.com/apologetics/a30.htm
I also know that Chrysostom says that Simon Rock could have ordained a replacement for Judas without anyone’s approval
P
patricius79
Guest
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
What that doesn’t mention is the fact that Canon 28 was accepted formally by the RCC at the Second Council of Lyon, and that it still took effect in the East immediately after the Council of Chalcedon, despite the pope’s refusal to agree to it (and also despite its high unpopularity with Alexandria and Antioch). In addition, Canon 28 states that Rome received her primacy because she was the royal city. Canon 28 makes no mention of any sort of divine rite to rule via Petrine Succession. The Church Fathers did not seem to regard Rome’s primacy as anything but a privilege given to her by the council.
Sure there is. There has only been one “Ecumenical Council” in the history of the Church which was ever in question, and that council was the Robber Council at Ephesus. It was overturned at Chalcedon because upon reviewing the acts of the council, it was decided that the Second Council of Ephesus was conducted improperly and therefore not ecumenical. Perhaps from the Catholic perspective, there’s no way to determine if a council is ecumenical or not without papal supremacy, but the Orthodox believe in no such nonsense. Had that been the case, then the Fifth Ecumenical Council wouldn’t be ecumenical since pope Vigilius would have refused to approve it (instead, it was the other way around; the council told pope Vigilius what to believe under pain of excommunication, and when he refused, he was stricken from the diptychs and imprisoned until he agreed to submit to Orthodox belief).
St. John Chrysostom was also a proponent of the idea that all bishops are inheritors of Peter, not just the pope, and he spent a majority of his life as a bishop in schism with Rome. His home patriarchate, Antioch, besides being in schism with Rome at the time of his ordination, is also a claimant for the Petrine Succession. He’s not exactly the type of figure who would have believed in papal supremacy.
P
patricius79
Guest
Hi Cavaradossi,
thanks for your post, my sister or brother. I don’t think that a Pope being reproved by a Ecumenical council for heresy or apostasy would prove anything.
but I can understand why you would have those views. I’ve looked into these issues and believe I have sincerely found that the Eastern Orthdox position as opposed to the Catholic is not correct.
I think It doesn’t make any sense that Chryostom believed that Rock had in himself the same power to ordain as the rest of the Apostles as a group. am I saying that right?
here it is:
Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who was ordained a teacher. He did not say: ‘We are sufficient.’ So far was he beyond all vain glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively
why would such a Primacy be needed at the beginning and not today?
also, this article is interesting:
"As we study the problem of primacy in general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government. And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical Councils as organs of government in the Church, we shall see presently that our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy." (Afanassieff, page 92)
philvaz.com/apologetics/num12.htm
that is from an EO scholar in Meyendorff’s famous book on the Papacy, which says that that the Councils and Father unanimously saw Rome as the center of Ecumenical agreement
it doesn’t make sense to me that a matter of faith wwould be dictated merely by politics rather than faith and the role of Simon Rock
Loughlin quotes Chalcedon, asking for the Pope to confirm Canon 28:
“We make known to you furthermore,” wrote the Fathers of Chalcedon to the successor of St. Peter, “that we have made still another enactment which we have deemed necessary for the maintenance of good order and discipline, and we are persuaded that your Holiness will approve and confirm our decree… We are confident you will shed upon the Church of Constantinople a ray of that Apostolic splendor which you possess, for you have ever cherished this church, and you are not at all niggardly in imparting your riches to your children. . . Vouchsafe then, most Holy and most Blessed Father, to accept what we have done in your name, and in a friendly spirit (hos oikeia te kai phila). For your legates have made a violent stand against it, desiring, no doubt, that this good deed should proceed, in the first instance, from your provident hand. But we, wishing to gratify the pious Christian emperors, and the illustrious Senate, and the capital of the empire, have judged that an Ecumenical Council was the fittest occasion for effecting this measure. Hence we have made bold to confirm the privileges of the afore-mentioned city (tharresantes ekurosamen) as if your holiness had taken the initiative, for we know how tenderly you love your children, and we feel that in honoring the child we have honored its parent…We have informed you of everything with a view of proving our sincerity, and of obtaining for our labors your confirmation and consent.” [22]
philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm
if one looks at St. Flavian’s letter to the Pope, and Anatolius’s and this and other related documents it seems pretty impressive to me
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but St. John Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome for the first 17 years of his Ordination. If he truly believed that Rome was the center of Christendom, then he would not have allowed himself to be ordained by Meletius, the bishop of Antioch with whom Rome and Alexandria were in schism. When he speaks of the Peter’s succession, he’s likely talking about how it’s received by all bishops.
That is a minority opinion within Orthodoxy for sure.
I am confused by what you mean by this. Do you believe that the pope is above politics?
They were doing this to preserve the unity of Christendom. Even with the pope’s refusal to accept Canon 28, the East put it into effect anyway.
P
patricius79
Guest
Hi Cavaradossi,
we are recieving somewhat different information.
Bonocore writes:
So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.” This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.
philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm
I wish I could respond to more but I can’t right now.
except to the part about preserving unity: I think that they submitted so much–Antolius’s submission to the Bishop of Rome was thorough–because submitting to the Successor of Peter is necessary for unity
as to Afanassief and Schmeman teaching a minority viewpoint among the Orthodox, that’s interesting.
what do you think is going on there?
also, what do you think of this?
Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm
and St. Chrys.:
“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])
philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm
as to politics… no I think the Pope is a political figure in a sense, but I don’t believe that Nicea would have used Rome’s authority to confirm Alexandria’s based merely on politics rather than faith
we are recieving somewhat different information.
Bonocore writes:
So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.” This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.
philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm
I wish I could respond to more but I can’t right now.
except to the part about preserving unity: I think that they submitted so much–Antolius’s submission to the Bishop of Rome was thorough–because submitting to the Successor of Peter is necessary for unity
as to Afanassief and Schmeman teaching a minority viewpoint among the Orthodox, that’s interesting.
what do you think is going on there?
also, what do you think of this?
Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm
and St. Chrys.:
“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])
philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm
as to politics… no I think the Pope is a political figure in a sense, but I don’t believe that Nicea would have used Rome’s authority to confirm Alexandria’s based merely on politics rather than faith
P
patricius79
Guest
I don’t know about some of that. here is another statement from Chrysostom which I find interesting:
And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (Chrysostom, In Joan Hom).
also, Bonocore seems to make a good case against the Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology:
Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism), Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism), the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine), the numerous “councils” in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox), and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism. All these Councils could have been defined historically as “Ecumenical,” if it were not for Rome’s refusal to cooperate with them.
philvaz.com/apologetics/a30.htm
he goes on to explain how the pro-Arian councils of Nicea were even approved by the people of the East while Nicea was not. (nor Chalcedon, which was rejected by the majority)
P
patricius79
Guest
these are from the Sixth Ecumenical Council:
The Sixth Ecumenical Council wrote to the Emperor: With us fought the Prince of the apostles for his imitator and successor is our protector, and he has declared unto us in his letter the secret of theology…And the ink shone, and* by Agatho Peter spoke.** (Mansi, xi, 658.)
The Council wrote to St Agatho: The greatest diseases require the greatest remedies…and therefore Christ our true God has given us Your Holiness as a wise physician, who firmly repellest the contagious plague of heresy by the antidotes of orthodoxy and bestowest health on the members of the Church. **And therefore we willingly leave what should be done to you, as occupying the first See of the Universal Church *and standing on the firm Rock of the Faith, having read through the writings of the true confession sent by Your Paternal Holiness to our most religious Emperor; which we recognize as divinely written from the chiefest Head of the apostles, and by which we have put to flight the dangerous opinions of the heresy which lately arose. (Mansi, xi, 683.)l
catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/orthopopes.html
The Sixth Ecumenical Council wrote to the Emperor: With us fought the Prince of the apostles for his imitator and successor is our protector, and he has declared unto us in his letter the secret of theology…And the ink shone, and* by Agatho Peter spoke.** (Mansi, xi, 658.)
The Council wrote to St Agatho: The greatest diseases require the greatest remedies…and therefore Christ our true God has given us Your Holiness as a wise physician, who firmly repellest the contagious plague of heresy by the antidotes of orthodoxy and bestowest health on the members of the Church. **And therefore we willingly leave what should be done to you, as occupying the first See of the Universal Church *and standing on the firm Rock of the Faith, having read through the writings of the true confession sent by Your Paternal Holiness to our most religious Emperor; which we recognize as divinely written from the chiefest Head of the apostles, and by which we have put to flight the dangerous opinions of the heresy which lately arose. (Mansi, xi, 683.)l
catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/orthopopes.html
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The thing is that there’s no denying that the councils gave Rome primacy; it’s written quite clearly. What is in question is the nature of that primacy.
On the issue of Canon 28: no matter what the Greek historians or the popes said, Canon 28 was put into effect. Jurisdiction over Asia, and Thrace passed over to Constantinople, and Constantinople was given her second seat of primacy under Rome.
For the Chrysostom quotes:
As for this one:
The monothelite controversy is a bit more complicated, so we have to look at the history behind it. Following Chalcedon, the emperors were still lamenting the loss of the miaphysites, and so they kept attempting to compromise the faith in order to bring them back in to the fold. While some attempts, like the Fifth Ecumenical Council, were expressions of orthodox belief, the new proposed compromise of monothelitism was not. It caused considerable unrest in Constantinople, and did not have widespread acceptance. Even so, some Church hierarchs fell into heresy during the controversy, like pope Honorius I and Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople. The most disturbing chain of events, however, during the whole controversy was probably the arrest and torture of Pope Martin I and Maximus the Confessor under the heretic emperor Constans II. As we can see, though, the popes, had very little authority over the situation, and it’s hard to credit their refusal to approve of monothelitism with being the sole cause for its repudiation; it wasn’t until the death of Constans II and the ascension of Emperor Constantine IV that the Sixth Ecumenical Council was called in order to settle the monothelite controversy; the Council voted that monothelitism was heresy and thereby repudiating previous councils which held a monothelite position (and again, it wasn’t the pope who made those councils illegitimate, it was the authority of another council)
On the issue of Canon 28: no matter what the Greek historians or the popes said, Canon 28 was put into effect. Jurisdiction over Asia, and Thrace passed over to Constantinople, and Constantinople was given her second seat of primacy under Rome.
For the Chrysostom quotes:
Again, St. John Chrysostom could be talking about many things when he talks about Peter. Antioch (the diocese in which he was ordained and which was in schism with Rome at the time of his ordination) was and still is a claimant to Peter’s succession. In addition his statement that Peter is the teacher of the whole world seems highly suggestive of the idea that all bishops participate in the succession of Peter (who, like bishops was invested with the power to bind and loose), not that the succession of Peter is bound to Rome. St. John Chrysostom really leaves little evidence for the divine right of Rome to its primacy when you take what he wrote in the context of his actual life (in fact, when taken in context, much of what he writes seems to express an opinion to the contrary).
As for this one:
I don’t think that’s true at all. It’s not the refusal of the pope to sign on which caused those councils to be repudiated; that those councils were not repudiated by Rome’s refusal to sign on, they were repudiated by later councils expressing orthodox belief. Another thing to keep in mind is that the poor attendance of those councils alone is enough to make them look suspicious. During the Arian controversy, for example, both Rome and Alexandria held fast to the Nicene faith. Rome did not actually do much to end Arianism; it was only when Theodosius I, who subscribed to Nicene Christianity came into power that he decreed that all should follow Nicene Christianity and assembled the Second Ecumenical Council in order to settle the matter. The Second Council of Ephesus similarly it wasn’t illegitimate because the pope decided that it was so, it was illegitimate when the Council of Chalcedon decided that it was so.
The monothelite controversy is a bit more complicated, so we have to look at the history behind it. Following Chalcedon, the emperors were still lamenting the loss of the miaphysites, and so they kept attempting to compromise the faith in order to bring them back in to the fold. While some attempts, like the Fifth Ecumenical Council, were expressions of orthodox belief, the new proposed compromise of monothelitism was not. It caused considerable unrest in Constantinople, and did not have widespread acceptance. Even so, some Church hierarchs fell into heresy during the controversy, like pope Honorius I and Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople. The most disturbing chain of events, however, during the whole controversy was probably the arrest and torture of Pope Martin I and Maximus the Confessor under the heretic emperor Constans II. As we can see, though, the popes, had very little authority over the situation, and it’s hard to credit their refusal to approve of monothelitism with being the sole cause for its repudiation; it wasn’t until the death of Constans II and the ascension of Emperor Constantine IV that the Sixth Ecumenical Council was called in order to settle the monothelite controversy; the Council voted that monothelitism was heresy and thereby repudiating previous councils which held a monothelite position (and again, it wasn’t the pope who made those councils illegitimate, it was the authority of another council)
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
As for this, all I can say is that again, papal primacy is not in question, just the nature of that primacy; however, none of that flowery language is really supporting a divine right to papal supremacy; that would involve a reverse in causality. The statement is not saying that because the pope is the successor of Peter, his statement of faith is therefore orthodox in nature, it’s saying that due to the orthodox nature of his confession of faith, he has been divinely inspired by Peter and is worthy to be called a successor of Peter. Had he sent in some heretical monothelite confession of faith, which the council had found disagreeable, they might have put an anathema upon him too.
P
patricius79
Guest
but the issue is how to distinguish them by an ecclesiological standard. someone might say “well a council is not Ecumenical if they teach falsely”. but this would seem to beg the question: “how do you know ecclesiologically that they have taught falsely?”
its a little like the Protestants who say in effect “its okay for me to insist on sentences not shown in Scripture because what I am saying reflects Scripture”
there has to be an ecclesiological standard if there is such as a thing as ecclesiology. and I know the EO scholar Afanassief says that the EO have no systematic ecclesiology
moreover here is another testimony which has helped me in understanding the gift of the new name “Rock” to only one Apostle:
St. Maximus the Confessor:
If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that every one who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus*, anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church**. I need hardly add that he excommunciates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God…For it is not right that one who has already been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic See of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her, nay to Our Lord, by a pious confession and orthodox faith**…Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox**. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all the holy synods, according to the canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world. (Letter to Peter by St Maximus the Confessor in Mansi x, 692.) *
catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/orthopopes.html
P
patricius79
Guest
I quite agree that the Pope has a responsibility to fulfill his role as the Successor of Simon Rock.
here is the EO historical scholar Afanassieff again, commenting on Cyprian, who called rome “the Principal Church from which priestly unity takes its source”:
“…according to his doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church…According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter’s throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter’s throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian’s insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian’s passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise].” (page 98-99
philvaz.com/apologetics/num12.htm
H
Hail_Linus
Guest
One needs to remember the main reason for convening the Council of Nicaea, namely the Arian heresy. Arius was a priest under the authority of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Bishop Alexander had hoped the problem would just go away but eventually he had to excommunicate Arius. Arius went to Eusebius of Nicomedia for support and the problem got completely out of control.
The Patriarchy of the Bishop of Rome was well established, organized, and respected. Just as the creed was written in an attempt to end the Arian Heresy, this canon was probably designed to keep the peace by requiring every Patriarch to respect the authority of the other Patriarchs. Notice how it specifies the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria. Eusebius of Nicomedia should have never given refuge to Arius and taken sides in a matter that was outside his jurisdiction. The canon clearly wants all Patriarchs to be respected as the Patriarch of the West (the Pope). The is not a Papal issue this is a patriarch issue. It still like this today. Not only between Patriarchs, but also between Archdiocese. If a priest from India wants to work as a priest in New York he needs the permission of his Bishop as well as the Bishop in New York.
P
patricius79
Guest
I think that when one looks at the patristic evidence one finds unanimous testimony the Primacy of Rome, not Antioch, which as I recall was a fountain of heresy at least at times.
as to Rock’s role being passed only to the Bishops as a whole… that makes no sense to me since Rock was a single person. why would the Church need a single person to be its foundation in the early years and then not need that?
Here is St. Chrys. again:
“Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that company, the ruler [Greek] of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the fervent lover of Christ (for He said: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me more than these?’) I speak his praises, that you may learn that he truly loves Christ, for the care of Christ’s servants is the greatest proof of devotion to Him; and it is not I who say this, but the beloved Master: ‘If thou lovest Me,’ saith He, ‘Feed My sheep.’ Let us see whether he has truly the primacy [Greek] of a shepherd, whether he really cares for and truly loves the sheep and is a lover of the flock, that we may know he also loves the Shepherd.” (In illud, scitote quod in noviss, diebus, 4, vol VI, 275[282-3])
philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm
P
patricius79
Guest
interesting
Canon six confirms the jurisdiction of Alexandria by appealing to custom and the authority of Rome, as Bellarmine taught.
this fits with the general patristic consensus as shown above
the context of this Canon was, according to Loughlin, the Meletian schism.
philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm
- Status