Eastern Catholic and Orthodoxy

[byzgirl]

A Council of Rome. How convenent.

You note that it speaks of three Sees of St. Peter, not one. Pope Gregory also speaks of this, among others. What is not explained, however, is how Alexandria, founded indirectly by St. Peter, jumps ahead of Antioch, where the “believers were first called Christians,” founded earlier by St. Peter himself.

Another note: this Isaiah “prophecy” about the keys is rather popular now, but it doesn’t even predate the English Reformation, which a look at the Douay Rheims comments on the section shows. Amazing how something that supposedly was in the mind in the Apostles on Matthew 16 gets forgotten for 16+ centuries.

Also, note the date of your Council: at the time SS. Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzus (of Constantinople), all out of communion with Rome, were busy holding the Second Ecumenical Council which wrote up the Creed we all say. All, that is, until the West decided to edit it.

I’ll get back to you on this one…no time now. But I’ll leave you with this quote:

From a post by JJR:

[St. Cyprian concerning St. Stephen’s judgement of the matter]:

“And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority.” (Epistles of Cyprian, LXXVI)

and this one:

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage - Letter to his Clergy and to All His People

byzgirl

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

I completely reject the Papacy in the Roman Catholic sense but I adore Pope Benedict XVI. My problem goes back to a study of the Councils there just was no monarchy in the Early Church as you find in Roman in later years.

That said I have practically no desire to wrestle in the dirt with Roman Catholics over this issue. Far more intelligent individuals have created a body of evidence on both sides of the divide for a few of us to resolve here, in my humble opinion. That and there are individuals who simply refuse to acknowledge the truth of the matter. I firmly believe that Roman has abandoned the One True Faith of the Apostles in many ways but I hold every hope that the truth will reveal itself and those who are willing with reap benefit from that truth. Amen.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

An Overview of Early Eastern and Western Dealings with Various Heresies

A little slanted.

Marcionism
rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

Lasted for several centuries in the West, led to Manicheism, St. Augustine’s confession before he entered the Church. Wasn’t he in the Latin West?

Montanism
was an apocalyptic sect which denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (199-217).

Was embraced by Tertullian, the first Latin Father. I think he was in the West too, under Rome.

Docetism
was the belief that Jesus Christ was not a real man, but only appeared to be so. The origins of Docetism derive from Hellenistic, Gnostic, and oriental notions that matter is essentially evil, which came out of Alexandria. Later christological heresies emanating from this school (such as Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, and Monophysitism) were influenced by Docetism.

The Cathari held similar beliefs. I think they were in the West too. St. Ignatius of Antioch condemned Doceticism in the strongest terms. I think he hailed from the East.

Modalism
(also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl… 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

Pope Demetrius of Alexandria (last I was there, it was still in the East) condemned the belief. St. Epiphanius, hailing from the Holy Land (in the East) states it was (4th cent.) wide spread in Mesopotamia AND ROME. (Anti-)Pope St. Hippolytus knew Sabellius.

Novatianism
was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope”. His views were approved at Antioch.

Went on to become…

Donatism
held that sacraments administered by unworthy priests were invalid, and practiced re-baptism. The sect flourished in Africa, around Carthage. It began in 311 and was condemned by Pope Miltiades (311-14), who also came from Africa, in 313.

A Formidable part of the Christians in Latin North Africa, in the Empire of the WEST, prefecture of ITALY.

Arianism
held that Jesus was created by the Father. In trinitarian Christianity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equal to, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father. Arius (c.256-336), the heresiarch, was based in Alexandria and died in Constantinople. In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism, whereas in a Council at Rome in the same year, under Pope Julius I, the trinitarian St. Athanasius was vindicated by over 50 Italian bishops. The western-dominated Council of Sardica (Sofia) in 343 again upheld Athanasius’ orthodoxy, whereas the eastern Council of Sirmium in 351 espoused Arianism, which in turn was rejected by the western Councils of Arles (353) and Milan (355).

Milan. Where the Apostle of the Arians, Wulfinas and his foster son Auxentius of Milan set up shop. You omit the fact that Arianism died out rapidly after the Second Ecumenical Council Constantinople I (held by those not in communion with Rome) in the East, but persisted in the West for centuries, until the Emperor Justianian came from Constantinople and wiped it out. All except in Spain, where it supposedly led to the filioque.

Pelagianism
is the heretical doctrine that man can make steps toward salvation by his own efforts, without Divine Grace. Pelagius cleared himself at a Synod at Jerusalem around 416, but was condemned at Carthage and Milevis in 416 and excommunicated by Pope Innocent I in the same year. Pope Zosimus reaffirmed this judgment in 418, as did the ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.

Not quite. The Synod of Jerusalem sent him packing West, seeing him as a Latin problem. He was condemned at Carthage, but Pope Zosimus of Rome had to be dragged into condemning him.

Nestorianism
contends that there are two persons in Christ (Divine and human) and denies that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate. Orthodox, Catholic Christianity holds to one Divine Person - a God-man. Nestorius ( d.c.451) studied at a monastery at Antioch and became Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, having been condemned by Pope Celestine I in the Council at Rome in 430 (after both sides of the controversy appealed to Rome). The ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 repeated the Roman condemnation, after which Eastern bishops predominantly from Syria, Persia and Assyria withdrew from the Catholic Church.

You ommit that Pope Cyril of Alexandria was the champion at Ephesus (and in spite of Rome instructions otherwise, the Council made its own decisions, and did not repeat nor rubber stamp Rome’s condemnation but insisted on its own hearing.

Monophysitism
was a heresy which held that Christ had one Divine Nature, as opposed to the orthodox and Catholic belief in two Natures (Divine and human). The Henoticon, a semi-Monophysite document was widely acknowledged in the East, but never at Rome. The co-writers of the Henoticon are thought to be Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople (471-89), and Peter Mongo, Patriarch of Alexandria (477-90). Both were Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Monophysitism was an advanced type of Alexandrian theology. Pope Leo the Great dominated the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, which repudiated Monophysitism.

Dominated? He wasn’t there. And although his tome was accepted, it was only after a committee of several hundred Fathers examined it. The council also reaffirmed Constaninople’s status, despite Leo’s protests, and he later had to conplain that his own bishops were following the Council’s canon 28 and not him in the matter.

Monothelitism
is the heretical belief that Christ had one will (Divine), whereas in orthodox, Catholic Christian dogma, Christ has both Divine and human wills. Sergius (d.638), Patriarch of Constantinople from 610 to 638, was the most influential exponent of Monotheletism. The Ecthesis, a Monothelite statement issued by Emperor Heraclius, was accepted by Councils at Constantinople in 638 and 639, but was finally rejected at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680, which confirmed the decisions of Pope Agatho and the Synod at Rome in 679.

My, my. Aren’t we forgetting something? The Sixth Ecumenical in 680 anathematized Pope Honorius of Rome for his Monotheletism, something Popes Agatho and Leo agreed with, and the papal oath for centuries contained an explicit condemnation of Honorius by name (Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum)

The Iconoclastic Controversy,
a great upheaval of the 8th and 9th centuries, was spurred on notably by Monophysitism and influenced by Islam. This heresy held that images in worship were idolatrous and evil. It was initiated by Eastern Emperors Leo II (717-41), who deposed Germanus (c.634-c.733), Patriarch of Constantinople (715-30) - who appealed to Pope Gregory III. Gregory held two Synods at Rome condemning Leo’s supporters in 731. In 784 Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, initiated negotiations with Pope Hadrian I. The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787 condemned the Iconoclasts. The Iconoclast Controversy was a major contributor towards the enduring schism between East and West.

The Monophysites had icons, so I don’t know what you are refering to there.

The Council of Frankfurt in 794, held by the “Roman” emperor (so crowned by the pope of Rome) Charlemagne condemned the Seventh Ecumenical Council and revoked its decisions on the icons. the Franks were indeed major contributors to the schism of the West from the East.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Actually, some of our Churches reunited without any political influences, and knew full well that there was a Schism. Case in point: the Antiochian Church, A.K.A. the Melkite Catholic Church.

Reunited of its own accord, Synod and Patriarch, without regard of the political safety of the move (the Church became a non-protected entity under Ottoman rule after this decision). Some of our Churches made the decision quite openly, and without pressure (aside from that put on them by the Eastern Orthodox/Muslim rulers to not reunite), thank you.

Peace and God bless!

Not entirely without political overtures: at the time Syrian of all stripes were asserted their independence of Constaniople and the Sultan. The maronites were a case in point and an example at the time (the maronite and Melkite patriarchs at the time were both in Aleppo, which was in process of becoming linked up with the European powers). But yes, the Melkite divorce was not the aduction/shot gun wedding that happened elsewhere.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Again, I’d like to ask, If you’re whole family is Roman Catholic, what’s YOUR reason for being what you call "pro-Orthodox’?

Consult Matthew 10:34-7.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So is this also a farce?..something misreprentative of history (in order to ‘bolster a position while sprouting some diatribe’?)

A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy
Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite
These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.

Without the Roman See, we’d all be heretics now.

Honorius

Monotheletism is heresy.

And so is filioque.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No, because it’s their ‘opinion’, and always in response to their denial of the Papacy. As you can see, no Pope (of the Roman See) has ever TAUGHT heresy (officially).

No response to that big list? You just shift it back to me?

Yes, that was the opinion of the Fathers at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and since it was also the opinion of the Holy Spirit it became the DOGMA of the Church.

Leo III condemned reciting the filioque. Leo IX insisted on it. Who was right?

We can go to Pope Vigilius (refused to condemn the Nestorian Three Chapters, and the Fifth Council struck him from the diptychs), Pope Zosimus (had to be forced to condemn Pelagius), etc., but let’s stick with that lump under the carpet Honorius.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Leo III condemned reciting the filioque. Leo IX insisted on it. Who was right?

John VIII, who followed Leo IX said that those who insisted on “filioque” were falsifiers of the faith and had their portion with Judas–but there were otherwise devout souls who simply didn’t know any better, so it would be better to wean them from Filioque little by little than to make an issue of it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

FOR the serious anti-Catholic, Pope Honorius I (625-638) occupies a small but pivotal role in the drama of Rome’s errors and abuses. This obscure pontiff lacks the lurid luster of the Crusades and the Inquisition in the anti-papist’s arsenal; nevertheless Loraine Boettner and other Protestant polemicists have used Honorius in attempting to deflate papal claims. Eastern Orthodox apologists such as John Meyendorff and Kallistos Ware and even Catholic anti-Catholics such as Hans Kng and Richard McBrien have pitched in to make Honorius the favorite pope of everyone who disparages the papacy.

While Alexander VI Borgia and other notorious Renaissance popes rate high among pope-haters, Honorius trumps his colleagues in that his problem was dogmatic, not merely behavioral. By all contemporary accounts Honorius’ personal conduct was beyond reproach, but his sincere attempts to resolve a controversy resulted in one brief sentence that many see as the destruction of the idea of papal infallibility and even of papal supremacy.

I was reading John Henry Newman and Karl Adam, all Brown equal time to answer the Catholic claims. I also picked up Meyendorff and Ware on the Orthodox Church, and books like Hans Kng’s Infallible? An Inquiry, thinking it would be an explanation and defense of the doctrine.

Cardinal Newman explained masterfully, in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, that an ongoing, infallible authority in the Church was necessary to preserve the integrity of revealed truth. Whatever the confusion in the Church, a Christian always had recourse to this sure repository of the actual content of revealed truth. Without such a repository, the content of revelation would be subject to mere human conjecture and opinion, thus essentially ceasing to be revelation at all.

The truth, of course, is one. If the papal office really were its repository, then the popes never had contradicted themselves on matters of faith and morals. As I studied Church history, I saw that this seemed to be so. When compared with the other great ancient see of the Church, the patriarchate of Constantinople, the papacy possessed monumental purity. Among the patriarchs of Constantinople were the arch-heretic Nestorius, a collection of grubby Iconoclasts and fellow travelers, and even a Calvinist, Cyril Loukaris! In Rome, on the contrary, was the saint Newman called “the majestic Leo,” who stood virtually alone against the Monophysite heresy; Julius I, who faced down the Arian bullies chasing after Athanasius; Gregory VII Hildebrand, whose last words were “I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile” and others who, without compromising one iota of the faith, outlasted Diocletian and Julian the Apostate, Henry V and Philip the Fair, Napoleon and Bismarck, Hitler and Stalin.

part 1

Little thick with the drama, no?

Just a little: Leo virtually alone? The Council of Chalcedon was the highest attended of all the Ecumenical Councils. St. Anatolius of Constantinople presided.

Gregory: he also evidently hated marriage, because he finally enforced the West’s abandonment of the Apostlic Tradition of married clergy (St. Peter was married you know).

Do you include Clement VII among those who didn’t compromise one iota? Was it his love or truth or Catherine’s nephew sacking Rome that prevented Henry’s VIII’s annullment (his aunt, after all, got one)?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Oh, you mention the filioque? *Did you know *that the Eastern Rite Catholics (my very own Church) has returned to the original format of the Nicene Creed?..as encouraged by the Pope??? That’s no longer a point that can be held to, so firmly, as a reason for the Orthodox to remain in schism. So there goes one of your serious obstacles. There are actually Catholics, in full communion with the Pope, who have returned to the ancient formula of the fililoque! The original debate was a matter of expression, and not deeply divided theology in the first place. The Pope, understanding the need for the Eastern rites to regain some of their more eastern traditions and customs, has encouraged the Byzantines to return to that original formula. Were you aware of that? I bet not.

So they don’t say it. When they condemn it, I’ll be impressed.

As far as the Immaculate Conception goes, I’ve had discussions with intelligent Protestants (who haven’t changed their minds either). But I still am out here, doing what I can. Without any deeply ‘theological’ apologetics, I’d say that the Immaculate Conception shouldn’t be one of such disbelief. The Fathers of the Church understood this doctrine, and it was reflected in their writings. I can’t understand how anyone can be so against the idea that God prepared our Blessed Mother (the Ark of the New Covenant) as a special sin-stained-free vessel for the Son of God’s own mother, the Theotokos!

Since (2 Corinthians 5:21) “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us,” the need for a sin-stained-free vessel makes no sense.

Regardless of debate over Catholic doctrines, the thing we Orthodox and Catholics have to get down to (brass tacks) is the Papacy and the authority that Christ institured in Peter’s Chair, alone. That authority, to teach correct doctrines, was given by Christ, to the Catholic Church, with the Seat of Peter. It hasn’t changed, regardless of your inability to accept it or not.

Changed in 1870.

You’re correct in that, there are plenty of intelligent people on both sides of the fence; however, the Church isn’t man-made, and Christ only promised the Holy Spirit to one Church, headed by the successors of Peter. There lies the difference.

Funny, in my Bible Christ breathes the Holy Spirit on all the Apostles (except Thomas) that first Pascha. And He doesn’t call the other Apostles Satan either.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

By the way, you didn’t answer my quesitons. Can we agree that that long list of heresies (in the above post) are, indeed, heresies? I think that deserves a direct answer (yes or no)…instead of being ignored and given your summation.

d

On the Monophysites there is some dispute with your list.

You also list heretical patriarchs who “reigned” when there were legimate Orthodox patriarchs. What do we care what heretics do?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

“We can say that,”, STOP. I almost missed that weak admission there. I guess that’s an equivalent to “yes, those are indeed heresies”. Further, that’s a rather long list, covering several centuries. I wouldn’t necessarily sweep it quickly under the rug. It means something more than ‘oh, you can say that.’. It would seem to indicate the protection of the Holy Spirit. There are NO agreed ‘heresies’ listed under the Roman See. Noteable, if not convincing for you. Not something that can be easily ignored. But I’m sure you’ll make the attempt to disregard it, despite your admission that they are, indeed, **agreed upon **heresies!

There’s that Monotheletism slip again.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Not funny. Clerical celibacy (something men, in general have a tough time with, and especially in modern times, almost a complete revulsion to the concept) has never been a ‘forced’ thing (no one HAS to become a priest). It’s a discipline (of which some cannot obtain and for which the bar shouldn’t be lowered) …and something of which many don’t have a ‘taste for’, but something worthy and good. If that is the fundamental reason which kept certain Australian Melkites from the Catholic Church, and away from the ‘divinely ordained petrine ministry’, I think it a very unforunate thing.

The Orthodox, bottom line…are going to have to reconcile to the Papacy. There will not be unity, without the understanding that the Pope holds the keys of Peter, and sits in the critical seat of unity.

Ah, yes that fount of unity, the papacy of Rome. Ever heard of the Great Western Schism and what it did for “unity” in the West, leading to that other sign of the Vatican’s ability to “unite,” the Protestant Reformation?

No one has to become a priest? You mean he should refuse the call?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I could argue with every point that you’ve countered, but do not currently have the time (this week I’m taking my children to our Byzantine Church’s VBS every day). So, I’ll make this short and sweet…

It doesn’t matter what the Orthodox can accept or not (or Protestantism). Peter was given the keys, and him alone. His authority was given, by Christ, to shepherd the Church throughout time, until His Return. The Seat of Peter, like the Chair of Moses’ authority, is not to be challenged (being derived by God Himself). It’s intention is not for the sole ‘power’ of a particular individual, but bestowed upon the heir of Peter. This singular ‘authority’ is Christ’s, and necessary, in the Church he instituted with men, to keep the flock (the New Israel/The Church) together as one. It is the promise of the Holy Spirit that has kept that intact. The Church is built upon the Rock (Peter).

Slava Isusu Christu!

Did Matthew 18:18 and 19:27-30 drop out of your Bible? How about I Corinthians 10:4?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Generally speaking, these “norms” may be considered as part of canon law.

Strictly and canonically speaking, however, these “norms” or “particular laws” as you correctly described are provisions that explicate in a more detailed manner the letter or meaning or province of a specific canon enshrined in the Code (Latin or Eastern). They more or less take the form of rules and regulations implementing the codified canons, which in the codification took into account historical and traditional laws on the matter.

The power to legislate or decree canons in the Catholic Church (East and West) belongs solely to the Supreme Authority, who is the Pope.

Yes, an ultramontanist invention, as in the Church of the first millenium the Councils and other fathers promulgated canons (and yes, the Church ignored Rome’s protest over canon 3 of Constantinople I, and c. 28 of Chalcedon).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

First off Brian Tierney was certainly against Papal infallibility; he was also on the side of the minority, along with others such as Hans Kung. I dont really understand why you have quoted him? If it is because you wish to make note that there were some bishops that opposed infallibility, then this is well noted; and well, obvious.

You assert that the Bishops of Rome only in the 6th Century started to develop this “idea” of their authority being of divine origin. However, as early as the year 256 we see Pope St. Stephen asserting Matthew 16:18 to himself, when we read from Firmilian of Caesarea’s letter to St. Cyprian concerning St. Stephen’s judgement of the matter:

Why stop there? Pope Victor thought he could dictate the date of Pascha, and he was rebuked by the entire Church.

"And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority." (Epistles of Cyprian, LXXVI)

Here Firmilian is writing to Cyprian about their contention that heretical baptism is invalid. Of course St. Stephen’s and Rome’s judgement of the matter held and was further asserted when the Council of Nicea in its 19th Canon adopted the Roman ruling. This letter of Firmilian’s is an obvious polemic and some historians have even questioned its authenticity because of the sharp language used therein. It should not be supposed that Firmilian himself does not view the Bishop of Rome as having that succesion, but only that he believes St. Stephen as: “introducing many other rocks”, that is, betraying the unity of the church. Of course, we know he wasn’t and the church subsequently adopted the Roman ruling.

Not quite. Economia was embraced, but not the “valid but illicit” line. Btw, Cyprian was in Rome’s patriarchate.

I would, however, agree with you that Rome was well aware of the ambitious pretensions of Constantinople. As we here from Pope St. Damasus:

“Likewise it is decreed:…We have considered that it ought to be announced that…the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior…”(Decree of Damasus from the Roman council of 382 where he states the 73 canonical books that were to be accepted by the church)

This very well may have been stated in opposition to the 3rd canon of Constantinople I, which at the time was not ecumenical, and would not obtain such a title till Chalcedon.

Yes this claim is advanced much. Problem is that we see the operation of canon 3 shortly thereafter by all the Eastern patriarchates, and the grudging de facto recognition of Rome.

As for the 28th canon of Chalcedon, we see that Constantinople ,and its ambitious bishop Anatolius, take far strides to put this canon into effect. However, not even a bishop of so high ambition would dare to believe he did not need the confirmation of the Pope. In the letter from the council of Chalcedon to Pope St. Leo, that was most probably written by Anatolius himself:

*“In order to show that we have done nothing from favour or dislike towards anyone, **we have brought the whole contents of what we have done to thy knowledge, and have communicated it to thee for confirmation and assent.” ***(Hefele quotes from Leo’s 98 Epistle)

On Feb 15th, 453 Emperor Marican writes a letter expessing that Leo should not delay his confimation for all that had been done at Chalcedon, blatantly showing the weight of the Bishop of Rome in regards to the confirmation of Ecumenical synods for the adherence of the church universal. Of course long before this Leo had written to Anatolius affirming the conucil, but Anatolius had kept it silent precisely because of the Pope’s speech that entailed the annulling of canon 28. Leo speaks of the matter thus:

"What therefore our most clement Emperor deemed needful I have willingly complied with, by sending letters to all the brethren who were present at the Synod of Chalcedon, in which to show that I approved of what was resolved upon by our holy brethren about the Rule of Faith; on their account to wit, who in order to cloke their own treachery, pretend to consider invalid or doubtful such conciliar ordinances as are not ratified by my assent: albeit, after the return of the brethren whom I had sent in my stead, I dispatched a letter to the bishop of Constantinople; so that, if he had been minded to publish it, abundant proof might have been furnished thereby how gladly I approved of what the synod had passed concerning the Faith. But, because it contained such an answer as would have run counter to his self-seeking, he preferred my acceptance of the brethren’s resolutions to remain unknown, lest at the same time my reply should become known on the absolute authority of the Nicene canons. Wherefore take heed, beloved, that you warn our most gracious prince by frequent reminders that he add his words to ours and order the letter of the Apostolic see to be sent round to the priests of each single province, that hereafter no enemy of the Truth may venture to excuse himself under cover of my silence." (Leo Epistle 114)

Yet Constantinople still insisted on her rank, and Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and yes, even Rome (Leo had to complain that his own bishops obeyed c. 28) recognized it
.

Really, there are countless quotes from the Father’s that blatantly show their reverence for the Apostolic see and its bishop.

Yes, where warrented. And plenty that take Rome to task when necessary. The Fifth and Sixth Councils for instance.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You have many difficulties to overcome here, specifically:

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

12And all the assembly fell silent . . . .

That James pronounced judgment in accord with Peter after he spoke should not concern us. If you think it has significance, then it is a little bit difficult to explain why no Patriarch since (except for the Bishop of Rome) has somehow given the definitive pronouncement of the decision of an ecumenical council. Your theory proves more than the Orthodox are willing to accept.

Oh? The Second Ecumenical Council, convened by saints (it is the council with the most canonized saints) OUT of communion with Rome, had no impute from when when they wrote the Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Chruch. Rome’s definitive pronouncement by Leo IX (contradicting Leo III) on the Creed led to your schism.

Then why accept primacy of honor?

There is no evidence that St. James alone wrote the letter:

22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23with the following letter:

It appears that it is you who are reading something into the Scriptures that is not there.

I don’t see St. Peter’s name there, nor a “pope” among the “apostles, elders and brethren.”

An easy thing to say, but an impossible thing to prove. Here is what your supposed advocate St. John Chrysostom has to say about the role of St. Peter:

“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])

"Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness." (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])

"The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples." (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])

"The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider's web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world." (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])

"Peter, the base, the pillar...." (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])

"This holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, he who received the spiritual revelation." (In Acta Apost VI, I [chap 2, verse 22] vol IX, 56[48]) [bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm](http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm)

And finally:

“If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world.”

And what does St. John say of Matthew 16? Not Vatican I.

Fact is, we do not see Rome controlling the other patriarchates in the early Church. Rome did not appoint the other patriarchs, did not depose them, did not approve them, etc. Ditto for the rest of the bishops outside of Rome’s patriarchate.

Right, just all of the other “innovations” that occurred during the first seven ecumenical councils. Pentarchy anyone? No such thing existed in the primitive Church. If everything that you’ve said is true, then there should be no such thing as primacy of honor in any form. Perhaps there is room yet for the notion that the successor of St. Peter has a specific Petrine ministry to carry out.

His successsors at Antioch? Alexandria? There is much on them being “Petrine” Sees, including from Rome.

 

[JJR1453]

Also, note the date of your Council: at the time SS. Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzus (of Constantinople), all out of communion with Rome, were busy holding the Second Ecumenical Council which wrote up the Creed we all say. All, that is, until the West decided to edit it.

Hmm…not really sure why you go to extra measures here to highlight that some from the East were out of communion from the West. It seems the Emperor Theodosius regards Rome as the Catholic orthodox yardstick to which all, from the East, must enter communion when he sets forth his decree that all must hold to the same faith as Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria. Notice how he points to both Damasus and Peter; but only to Rome is expressed that faith that was transmitted to Rome from the chief Apostle, Peter.

Also, Gregory Nazianzus felt so vehement about putting an end to the Meletian-schism and worked so hard for unity with the West, or rather, the orthodox; that this is how he felt about the Easterners perpetuating the schism:

"It had already been agreed during the lifetime of
Meletius, that when either of the two orthodox Bishops of
Antioch, Meletius or Paul, died, no new bishop should be
elected in his place, but the survivor should be universally
acknowledged. Notwithstanding this, some members of the
Council demanded that a successor to Meletius should be elected, while Gregory of Nazianzus, who was now president, did all in his power to procure the carrying out of the agreement. The
younger bishops of the Synod, however, violently opposed him,
being of opinion that the recognition of Paul would be too
great a concession to the Latins; they succeeded in carrying
away with them older bishops also, and thus it came to pass
that Flavian, hitherto a priest, was chosen as the successor of
Meletius by the bishops of the dioceses ( = patriarchates) of
Antioch and Asia, and was confirmed by the Synod, whereby
the Meletian-schism was perpetuated.
This grieved Gregory so much that he would no longer be present at the meetings of the Council, and quitted the episcopal
residence, and made his intention of resigning more and
more plain every day." (Hefele, Hist. of Coun. Vol II)

God bless,

JJR

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hmm…not really sure why you go to extra measures here to highlight that some from the East were out of communion from the West.

The highlight the absurd notice that communion is defined in relationship to Rome.

It seems the Emperor Theodosius regards Rome as the Catholic orthodox yardstick to which all, from the East, must enter communion when he sets forth his decree that all must hold to the same faith as Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria. Notice how he points to both Damasus and Peter; but only to Rome is expressed that faith that was transmitted to Rome from the chief Apostle, Peter.

On the first part, you quote in full (I commend you), Peter of Alexandria is explicitly mentioned, so you answer your own question. Why mention him at all, if Damasus was sole successor of St. Peter (the status of Alexandria as a Petrine See is mentioned elsewhere)? Btw, the decree says “Romans,” which means the entire empire at the time.l

Also, Gregory Nazianzus felt so vehement about putting an end to the Meletian-schism and worked so hard for unity with the West, or rather, the orthodox; that this is how he felt about the Easterners perpetuating the schism:

"It had already been agreed during the lifetime of
Meletius, that when either of the two orthodox Bishops of
Antioch, Meletius or Paul, died, no new bishop should be
elected in his place, but the survivor should be universally
acknowledged. Notwithstanding this, some members of the
Council demanded that a successor to Meletius should be elected, while Gregory of Nazianzus, who was now president, did all in his power to procure the carrying out of the agreement. The
younger bishops of the Synod, however, violently opposed him,
being of opinion that the recognition of Paul would be too
great a concession to the Latins; they succeeded in carrying
away with them older bishops also, and thus it came to pass
that Flavian, hitherto a priest, was chosen as the successor of
Meletius by the bishops of the dioceses ( = patriarchates) of
Antioch and Asia, and was confirmed by the Synod, whereby
the Meletian-schism was perpetuated.
This grieved Gregory so much that he would no longer be present at the meetings of the Council, and quitted the episcopal
residence, and made his intention of resigning more and
more plain every day." (Hefele, Hist. of Coun. Vol II)

God bless,

JJR

Alas, St. Gregory was deposed from the council because of the canon against translation of bishops.

And Flavian is canonized in both East and West. Paulinus is not.

 

[JJR1453]

The highlight the absurd notice that communion is defined in relationship to Rome.

On the first part, you quote in full (I commend you), Peter of Alexandria is explicitly mentioned, so you answer your own question. Why mention him at all, if Damasus was sole successor of St. Peter (the status of Alexandria as a Petrine See is mentioned elsewhere)? Btw, the decree says “Romans,” which means the entire empire at the time.l

Alas, St. Gregory was deposed from the council because of the canon against translation of bishops.

And Flavian is canonized in both East and West. Paulinus is not.

Well, it would seem Rome is always used as that yardstick for orthodoxy. Same thing took place in the preceding years with the semi-Arians who wrote out their declaration of faith to Rome and the Italian bishops in order ot be received back into the church.

Also, I must say, I have never seen any Orthodox go through so much trouble to explain away a statement as to state that it was to the ‘Roman Empire’ that St. Peter transmitted the orthodox faith! Allow me to expound brother. The reason Alexandria is also noted along with Rome is because these are the two leading see’s in both East and West, thus, Theodosius is procaliming the lawful adherence of the entire empire. Constantinople had not yet applied her ambitions. Im sorry, but your absurd and distorted interpretation that St. Peter transmitted the true faith to a pagan Rome Empire is utterly outlandish. When he says ‘Romans’, he is refering to the christians of the city of Rome, NOT a pagan Empire. It is preserved by Peter of Alexandria as well, but its source comes from its initial transmission to the ‘Romans’.

God bless,

JJR