You keep referring to the 419 Council of Carthage, and **not **referring to the Councils of Sirmium, or many
other councils of heretics, and you haven’t referred to the 484 Council of Carthage. Why not?
I am just pointing out this pattern. Protestants unconsciously are glued to the councils with some connection to the Magisterium - in the Council of 419, it appears as a quarrel within the family, but still, within range of the Magisterium’s Christianity.
Protestants avoid, and I mean
avoid,
referring to the authority of any synod or council of the other Christianities, including the gnostics, Arians, etc. This is parallel to the pattern of sticking like glue to** this **particular 27 book canon,
avoiding like the plague the other, equally plausible Christian canons. They also rely heavily on
this list of scholars identified (by some agency) as Early Church Fathers, and avoiding that list with those other learned Christian scholars identified (by ?) as heretics.
Catholics and Protestants are following a template. The template points to a visible, human template maker.
Just to add something more to this.
Canon 6 of Nicaea
Everyone is aware of the Council of Nicaea, held in 325, and how it was renowned for not only being the First Ecumenical Council but also for its importance in stopping Arianism. A common belief is that this was a gathering of 318 bishops of equal standing (i.e. no concept of a Roman primacy) who’s collective conciliar authority won the day. But this concept fails to understand the reality of the ecclesial structures then in place, in which there clearly was a hierarchy of bishops, with the Pope at the top. An important testimony to this comes from Canon 6 of this same council, which states:
“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these,
since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.”
This shows the early development of areas of jurisdiction, keep in mind this council was nearly 100 years before the Carthage council of 419. Rome (its preeminent jurisdiction) being the example that was set for the other major churches that were growing in other lands, that they would have jurisdiction similar to what Rome had, but on a smaller scale.
Council of Constantinople Canons 2 & 3
The Second Ecumenical Council, held in 381 (55 years after Nicaea), gives further credence to the Catholic position on the Papacy. Here are Canon 2 and Canon 3 from this Council:
Canon 2: The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nicaea, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nicaea. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.
Canon 3: The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.
Notice that Canon 2 clearly references Canon 6 of Nicaea in regards to the jurisdiction and prerogatives of Alexandria and Antioch, yet no mention is made of an alleged “Patriarchate” or “jurisdiction of Italy” of the Bishop of Rome. This is quite odd if, in fact, Canon 6 was meant to be interpreted in the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant manner. But such makes perfect sense with the Catholic understanding of Canon 6. No jurisdiction of Italy is mentioned because one did not exist. If it did exist, surely it would have been mentioned, along with those of Pontus, Thrace, Antioch and Alexandria. While the Bishop of Rome is properly Bishop of the Roman Diocese, as Successor of Peter he also has a final jurisdiction over all the local churches as well.
And if that wasn’t enough,
Canon 3 says the Bishop of Rome is of first rank, and that Constantinople being “New Rome” is thus to receive second rank among all the Bishops. This is utterly absurd if, indeed, there was an equality among the bishops, particularly an equality among Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (i.e. the alternate reading of Canon 6). This only makes sense if Rome truly was of first rank and that this was universally understood this whole time. In other words, Canon 3 establishes that everybody already agreed that Rome was ranked first; Canon 3 simply establishes that Constantinople would now come second.
