Documentation Request re Nicea

  • Thread starter Thread starter TinaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TinaG

Guest
Hi!

On another thread someone made the claim that the Pope at the time of the great council approved of the council officially.

Please furnish documentation that he did so. It would be of interest if it included recognition that other bishops recognized his role as sole successor of Peter and universal sovereign over all other Christians.

-Tina “Thanks!” G
 
Which Council is the “great” council? I could entertain arguments for (at least) Nicea, Trent, and Vatican 1 & II.

If you refer to older Councils (pre-Sixteenth Century) then you may have a hard time finding documents in English. Many have never been officially translated from Latin (which remains the official language of the Church).
 
DavidFilmer said:
Which Council is the “great” council? I could entertain arguments for (at least) Nicea, Trent, and Vatican 1 & II.

If you refer to older Councils (pre-Sixteenth Century) then you may have a hard time finding documents in English. Many have never been officially translated from Latin (which remains the official language of the Church).
Click to expand...
If you look in the title, it’s “Nicea”. I assume this means Nicaea I, not Nicaea II, although both were important councils.

I can’t provide documentation, but I once read over a college friend’s paper on basically this topic, and while I’ve forgotten most of it the gist of the paper was that representatives came from Rome to represent the Pope.

That said, there’s really two ways for a Council to become ecumenical in the modern Catholic sense of the word. The first is for it to be presided over the Pope and given that authority right then and there. The other is for the Council to be recognized as ecumenical by the Pope (or a future ecumenical council) sometime in the future, perhaps centuries in the future. That seems to have been the case with some of not all the early Councils.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
If you look in the title, it’s “Nicea”. I assume this means Nicaea I, not Nicaea II, although both were important councils.

I can’t provide documentation, but I once read over a college friend’s paper on basically this topic, and while I’ve forgotten most of it the gist of the paper was that representatives came from Rome to represent the Pope (and simultantiously the Empreror, I believe.

That said, there’s really two ways for a Council to become ecumenical in the modern Catholic sense of the word. The first is for it to be presided over the Pope and given that authority right then and there. The other is for the Council to be recognized as ecumenical by the Pope (or a future ecumenical council) sometime in the future, perhaps centuries in the future. That seems to have been the case with some of not all the early Councils.
Click to expand...
 
Excuse me, I meant the first council. It is a matter of extreme curiosity as to why, if the pope was head of all the church, he did not show up for its first council since the Council of Jerusalem. I think this argues against an early Roman papal dominance.

-Tina “Not that I am Argumentative” G
 
Popes refused to leave Italy at that time. Pope St. Leo I insisted that the Fourth Ecumenical Council be held in Italy so he could attend. This was made impossible by the Hunnic invasion of Italy so it was held in Chalcedon. If it proves anything, it is that the popes of that era refused to leave Italy.
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
Popes refused to leave Italy at that time. Pope St. Leo I insisted that the Fourth Ecumenical Council be held in Italy so he could attend. This was made impossible by the Hunnic invasion of Italy so it was held in Chalcedon. If it proves anything, it is that the popes of that era refused to leave Italy.
Click to expand...
Source(s), please

-Tina “Thanks!” G
 
paul_c said:
here is an article that explains how the 6th canon of the council of Nicea demonstrates papal supremecy:

philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm
Click to expand...
I don’t think it makes the case (you are not surprised to hear me say that!).

On my quick first read he demonstrates only that in somewise the Roman administration of some other churches should be followed by other patriarchies. I differentiate between papal primacy and domination, which is the issue over which the Orthodox tell me the Great Schism occurred.

The modern papal system, to my eyes, was not fully formed at the Second Council. I think there was Petrine primacy that was shared among all the patriarchs and/or bishops rather than being confined to Rome. To force that system into 2nd Nicea is an error of anachronism. If he addressed that, I missed that.

This also refers to Second Nicea. On another thread I was told that the Pope authenticated Nicea 1. THAT is the documentation I am looking for.

But I enjoyed the read, and thank you for posting it.
 
TinaG said:
I don’t think it makes the case (you are not surprised to hear me say that!).

On my quick first read he demonstrates only that in somewise the Roman administration of some other churches should be followed by other patriarchies. I differentiate between papal primacy and domination, which is the issue over which the Orthodox tell me the Great Schism occurred.

The modern papal system, to my eyes, was not fully formed at the Second Council. I think there was Petrine primacy that was shared among all the patriarchs and/or bishops rather than being confined to Rome. To force that system into 2nd Nicea is an error of anachronism. If he addressed that, I missed that.

This also refers to Second Nicea. On another thread I was told that the Pope authenticated Nicea 1. THAT is the documentation I am looking for.

But I enjoyed the read, and thank you for posting it.
Click to expand...
No. this is for nicea 1
 
TinaG said:
Excuse me, I meant the first council. It is a matter of extreme curiosity as to why, if the pope was head of all the church, he did not show up for its first council since the Council of Jerusalem. I think this argues against an early Roman papal dominance.
Click to expand...
Nicaea I was requested by Emperor Constantine, primarily to resolve the Arian heresy that had arisen in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. The location of the dispute is presumably why the council was held in Nicaea, modern-day Turkey.

Pope Sylvester did not attend the council, although he did send two papal legates to represent him, Victor and Vincentius. Bishops throughout the history of ecumenical councils when unable to attend have sent legates in their places. If you want to see why Sylvester himself may not have wanted to attend, take a look at the distance between Rome and Nicaea. Map of the Roman Empire.

The papal legates signed the decrees of Nicaea I. While there is speculation as to who presided over the council, we don’t know for certain. You can read about the council of Nicaea here in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The information is largely corroborated by this website that takes its information from Norman Tanner’s Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top