There’s nothing ambiguous about it at all. I was asked what I’d say if I was asked if I was Orthodox. That was my response.
If that’s so then what’s the deal with the letter of the synod, where it says things like the following:
I actually agree with you (minus the ‘vicar of Christ’ bit, but I’m not getting into that again), but would add that getting the support of any Patriarch would advance the position. That’s what this whole ‘consensus’ bit is all about (also featured in the letter of the synod: “…as your holiness also rightly having examined this has given witness”; it’s the Roman Pope also that makes for complete agreement, not the Roman Pope alone…if this weren’t the case, then why was the complaint of Leo against the elevation of Constantinople not enough to stop that from happening?).There is no evidence either was taking a pulse. Both were making their case to the Vicar of Christ who they both understood had the authority and the ecclesial weight to advance their position. Everybody knows that.
Um…what? I know you were talking about St. Cyril. My point is: Why are phrasing your point in this manner when no one had suggested that this was at issue? Nobody was talking about “offense” or “irrelevance” of the Roman Pope’s authority or opinion.
Why is Roman Pope in scare quotes? He’s the Pope of Rome.
Which we on this forum really don’t know (and I don’t see any reason that Ferde Rombola should necessarily tell us more about this priest than he has already). For all we know, it could be that the priest doesn’t know him personally; or does know him personally but doesn’t yet know that he left Orthodoxy; or … well, I’m not trying to enumerate every possibility, but making the point that there are a lot of unknowns here.
I agree! Like you said Our Lord is patient and waits on us in our development of maturity. And for us to move towards unity it is imperative that we must acknowledge the pain we caused each other and use it to move towards unity, instead of allowing it to separate us. We must not allow it be a tool of division any longer instead we must use it as a tool to bring us closer, and someday, to unite us. I pray that our Churches will be united once again, I hope to see us united in our lifetime but it will be when it will be in the Lord’s time. I just remember the words of St Ignatius of Antioch in his epistle to the Philadelphians “But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father.” And the words of Jesus our Lord “so that they may be one, as we are one” (John 17:22)
The Truth which is well documented. And instead of searching for ways to circumvent it to enhance one’s own misguided intent, we should see it for what it actually is, especially since the path is paved in blood.
Acts of Ephesus II (ed. Perry), looks like a comprehensive study. right though its why different points of perspective are imperative to the larger view. Polemics, if there’s a sentence of truth that leads to clearer understanding, should be investigated imho. Apologetics is concerned with proving the truth. Polemics is the art or practice of argumentation or controversy. The later confirms the prior. I believe were in agreement.
I think the matter is pretty well settled with the first line of your citation and needs no elabortion. In that light, your remarks are stunning in their blatent denial.
What I read is, 'We received your determination and acted on it;
This reponse is similarly stunning in its disingenuousness. First the Orthodox condemn popes for their arrogance and heavy-handed bullying, and now you complain about this Pope’s restraint. Seems we Catholics are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.If the decision was based on the Pope’s approval, why would they have phrased it like that (summarizing actions already taken)? In fact, why would anyone bother holding any council, ever? Why not just ask the Roman Pope what he thinks, and then do whatever he says, just like St. Dioscoros did when Leo wrote that lett…oh, wait…
Okay, who else did St. Cyril write to? You’re talking about pulse-taking. The correspondence wasn’t about that. It was about getting the decision of the Vicar of Christ, which term I use to stress the authority given him by Christ, not to antagonize you.
You insist on calling it ‘consensus,’ which is not supported by the evidence.
“…having examined…has given witness…” means you considered the facts and made a determination based on the facts. ‘Complete agreement’ may be accurate. It means, without the Pope’s agreement, the matter was not settled.
When you said you never suggested the Pope’s opinion was irrelevant or offensive it became clear you misunderstood what I wrote, which is why I repeated it. I was making an argument from logic and deductive reasoning. Having repeated it, you still seem not to know what I said, so let’s just drop it.
The ‘Roman pope’ is in quotes because it’s the term you used, which most Catholics find derisive. We never use that ‘title.’ You may be using it as a distinction from the Coptic pope, but I think we can agree that isn’t necessary in this conversation.Why is Roman Pope in scare quotes? He’s the Pope of Rome.
As to the rest, we’ll have to agree to disagree, for reasons I have gone into already in this post. The Council was informing Leo of what they’d already decided, in hopes that he would support their decisions.
God bless you.here’s an inspiring story
I suppose you are right. I am denying that the letter should be read the way you do. I don’t really see what’s so stunning about that, though. It’s as obvious to me that the letter is not an appeal to Rome to decide the matter as it is to you that it is.
As is in keeping with your ecclesiology, I suppose.
.
Who’s complaining about heavy-handedness or restraint? How is this an answer to the question I asked?So all other bishops (even Patriarchs) are essentially functionaries or advisers of the Pope of Rome, and therefore the letter of the synod is wrong in calling Celestine “our fellow minister”, rather than something reflecting his role as “a governing body”? (The Roman Pope is a ‘body’ unto himself?) One wonders why there were particular legates in the form of Arcadius, Projectus, and the presbyter Philip to represent Rome at the council, in that case. Because it seems to me that the synod is the governing body, and the Pope of Rome is in the place of preeminence within the synod in accordance with the ancient order of the Pentarchy following from the respect paid to Rome as the imperial city, and in light of Rome’s long-held Orthodoxy and blessed apostolic origins.
Yes, it is good that the Pope of Rome, in his capacity as the bishop of the Apostolic See, should be informed of the goings on of the council. But I wonder about this ‘ratification’ business, in light of the fact that the lack of it did not prevent the Eastern bishops from accepting the canons of the Quinisext Council while you and the Byzantines were still in union, nor did the lack of Roman ratification keep the East from accepting much earlier all 7 canons of the Council of Consantinople, which Rome did not accept (according to the source, they accepted either 4 or 5 of the 7).
Fair enough.As for the St. Dioscoros business, I have deliberately stayed out of that scrap and you couldn’t drag me into it with a herd of elephants.
Who else would he have had to write to in order to obtain support? Who else wasn’t present who would’ve carried similar authority as the Pope of Rome?
I agree. That’s why I haven’t been talking about “pulse-taking”. You are the one who has used that phrase, but I don’t know what you mean by it. I do not believe that anybody (be it St. Cyril, or any synod) merely wrote to Rome to take the Papal temperature, so to speak.
I disagree. Again, if it were otherwise, why were they writing to him to explain what they had already done? It would be rather silly to call a council, make all kind of decisions, decrees, pronouncements, etc. and then write to the Roman Pope in hopes that he’ll ratify them. What if he doesn’t? “Whoops. Sorry for coming out, everybody! Sorry for several of you dying on the way here! I guess we all wasted our time and money because Rome does not agree!” Again, Rome didn’t agree with the Quinisext Council, nor with all of the canons of Constantinople I, yet Constantinople is accepted today as an ecumenical council by the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, and the Quinisext Council forms the basis of Eastern Orthodox canon law (and was accepted by the Eastern bishops over a century before the tragic events of 1054). So I’m afraid the picture you are painting is an overly simplistic one.
See above for two counterexamples to this idea. I know Rome is the center of your ecclesiastical universe, but it is not so for all of us.
Okay.
I’m actually using it in a geographical sense, not ecclesiastical (I agree that it would not make sense to use it in an ecclesiastical sense to refer to times prior to the Chalcedonian schism; we were one church at the time of Constantinople). “Pope” is a title that has an interesting history which cannot be attributed to Rome alone, either historically or currently. I don’t particularly like the phrase “Coptic Pope”, either, as ‘Copt’ (unlike ‘Roman’) is an ethno-linguistic term, and not all popes have been ethnic Copts. Some have been Syrians, just as in the case of the Roman papacy. In the context of our conversation, which is addressing the subject of the proper ecclesiastical boundaries and application of Roman (Papal) authority at the time of the early councils, it is entirely appropriate to emphasize that he is the Pope of Rome in order to emphasize my belief, which is the Orthodox belief, that every Patriarch has a particular canonical territory which is within his governance, i.e., there is no universal jurisdiction.
No. Plenty of things that the Roman Popes have approved of were not taken up by the rest of the church: clerical celibacy, Papal supremacy, Papal Petrine exclusivism (e.g., the apparent belief that the Roman See is the sole See of Peter, to the exclusion of Antioch), many modern dogmas, etc. The Roman Pope is not the be all and end all of the faith. The sad case of Honorius should be more than enough of an example of why that can’t be so.
No, no, no…you seem to think that’s what I think, but that’s not what I think. I’ve addressed this already, but just to be absolutely clear: The conciliar model of early church governance (which is to say, the model of early church governance) included the Pope of Rome during Rome’s orthodox period. So it wasn’t just a formality or a pleasantry on the part of other bishops that they should seek his support. Just the same, as several examples have already shown, he wasn’t the be-all and end-all of Church governance, just as St. Peter, who is recognized as foremost among the apostles by the Orthodox Church, was not the expositor of the faith at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, where he was withstood by St. Paul for his acceptance (temporarily) of the Judaizing tendencies popular in the Church at that time.You seem to think all this correspondence was just polite chatter with no substance. If that’s what you think, I think you’re wrong.
From what I hve gathered, it’s always: Council + Pope, in terms of ratification = truth. That is what I am seeing in history. Plenty of quotes to support the claim. :shrug:Even when the Pope spoke from the chair regarding the AoM and the IC, he always worked collaboratively with Council via the guidance of God, ineffably of course.
Yes it is an excellent read.
I will try even though I am not quite sure what I am to comment on. It seems to me this thread which speaks on what authority today the Pope is to enjoy has its witness the many dialogues there was between bishops of East and West. While this is true I must confess that whatever authority or primacy the Holy Father had back then with his own Church (the Catholic Church) was not in the same authority or structure he enjoyed with the rest of the other Churches (that is the Eastern Churches). His authority at home was complete however his authority in the East was only limited to a Pastoral authority and never within the same authority and structure he enjoys with the Church of Rome. The remarks and greeting he receives from Eastern bishops only signify His role pastorally. Since all the Eastern Churches were self-governing they did not look to the Holy Father in matters that deal with them internally so their Churches had no Papal announcements in regarding what these Churches (Eastern) are to do. In simple terms the Easterners were on their own. But when controveraries and difficulties occured let us say for instance between high ranking Eastern bishops it was common for them to bring these issues to the Pope to give him concerns so he can give out whether support and council he was able to do so. Many times the Eastern bishops would have clashed among themselves (an example of this is when the Patriach of Alexandia wanted to dispose of St. John Chrysostom) so an mediator such as the Pope can step in to give whatever support.Hey chimo.
Here is one more from Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria - 450 AD:
I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).
If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives.
Did the preeminence end with Peter? St. Cyril of Alexandria:
“They (the Apostles) strove to learn through one, that preeminent one, Peter.”
I’m confused. You were talking about the letter to the Pope from the Council detailing their deliberations after the fact and asking him to acceed to them. What is stunning is the fact you can post a letter beginning with the acknowedgment of the Pope’s determination being the determining factor in the Council’s deliberations, then deny the implicatons in what you posted. How could such a letter be an appeal to Rome for an opinion? The opinon, sought by St. Cyril, had been sent months prior to the writing of the letter we’re discussing.
As is your opinion. The difference is, my reading of the letter conforms to the evidence, yours conforms to your ideology.As is in keeping with your ecclesiology, I suppose.
Oh come on, now. Is it not the enduring complaint of the Orthodox that the popes are dictators seeking to keep you under their thumb, to demand submission from you? Grabbing power and authority they are not entitled to? Did you not ask why Pope Celestine didn’t simply judge the matter autocratically, the very kind of action you complain of?What?
This kind or rhetoric is clearly argumentative and self-serving. And sarcastic.
Probably to witness the proceedings and participate in the debate.
That sounds great, but if there is no corresponding authority, all the ancient orders and respects paid and long-held orthodoxy (sic) is meaningless. WIndow dressing complete with a mannequin of the pope.
I’m not familiar with these proceedings and have no comment. That doesn’t mean I accept your version of the events or that there may not be mitigating factors not included in your recitation…
You tell me. You’re the one advocating for a consensus. That would entail multiple letters to multiple bishops. You say they were all there. Why then did Cyril have to write to the Pope at all? I’m trying to follow you, but the twists and turns make it difficult.
Then there had to have been a higher purpose. I’ve explained it enough. No need to replow the ground.
Oh, I understand and agree. I just worry that readers of this thread might assume that the Orthodox priest in question gave Ferde communion knowing that he had left the Orthodox Church.I agree, Peter. I’m not asking for more info, just so we’re clear.