Eastern Catholic and Orthodoxy

[Isa_Almisry]

Correct. St. Gregory does compare the four councils to the four gospels; however, it is the creed which affords it such an analogy. The creed which was accepted and held in high reverence at Rome.

You skipped over the Popes between Chalcedon and him: Leo I denied any knowledge at Rome of it, Felix III passes over it in silence when listing three Councils, as does Gelasius of decree fame.

Constantinople was necessary for Ephesus? Really? So was Arius some sort of Archbishop, or was he a Patriarch? Nevertheless, he seems to have caused quite the heretical movement.

If it wasnt’ necessary, we would be talking about the Third Ecumenical Council at Constantinople II, not Ephesus. Nestorius had to be removed from his privleged position to stand trial. Note also the decree is specifically a depostion of Nestorius, without a refutation of his ideas. Even then, John of Antioch et alia rallied to keep him in office, and it took more efforts to get him exiled deep in St. Cyril’s territory to keep an eye on him.

Arius had already been deposed, excommunicated and condemned by Pope Alexander and the Synod of Alexandria. Arius had converts, like Eusebius of Nicomedia, i.e bishop of the Eastern capital. Note the Creed refutes the idea of a created Son, but doesn’t deal with Arius, there was no need to.

I will agree with you that Constantinople did later preside over Alexandria and Antioch, as per the Eastern council of 381. Certainly Rome knew mothing of the sorts, reason being: It was not Ecumenical canons that were pronounced at the synod. Only Eastern canons that were followed by Eastern see’s.

Constantinople presided from 381 on.

Your last post is a historical error. The Fathers looked on at Nicea in very high reverence, no minimalist about it. And they were not shy in their praise of the councils.

God bless,

JJR

They were high of praise of Nicea, but not of themselves: the Decree of Ephesus is a few sentences, shorter than the decrees of either the first two Councils. Only with Chalcedon do the elaborate pronouncements become the norm.

On Constantinople I, according to the decree of Chaldeon the Fathers there state “Therefore, whilst we also stand by”:

—the decisions and all the formulas relating to the creed from the sacred synod which took place formerly at Ephesus, whose leaders of most holy memory were Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria we decree that

—pre-eminence belongs to the exposition of the right and spotless creed of the 318 saintly and blessed fathers who were assembled at Nicaea when Constantine of pious memory was emperor: and that

—those decrees also remain in force which were issued in Constantinople by the 150 holy fathers in order to destroy the heresies then rife and to confirm this same catholic and apostolic creed.

—The creed of the 318 fathers at Nicaea.

—And the same of the 150 saintly fathers assembled in Constantinople.

This wise and saving creed, the gift of divine grace, was sufficient for a perfect understanding and establishment of religion. **For its teaching about **the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit is complete, and it sets out the Lord’s becoming human to those who faithfully accept it.

legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM04.HTM#2

Somehow the Fathers of Chalcedon saw an accetance of Ephesus of Constantinople I.

 

[JJR1453]

They were high of praise of Nicea, but not of themselves: the Decree of Ephesus is a few sentences, shorter than the decrees of either the first two Councils. Only with Chalcedon do the elaborate pronouncements become the norm.

On Constantinople I, according to the decree of Chaldeon the Fathers there state “Therefore, whilst we also stand by”:

—the decisions and all the formulas relating to the creed from the sacred synod which took place formerly at Ephesus, whose leaders of most holy memory were Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria we decree that

—pre-eminence belongs to the exposition of the right and spotless creed of the 318 saintly and blessed fathers who were assembled at Nicaea when Constantine of pious memory was emperor: and that

—those decrees also remain in force which were issued in Constantinople by the 150 holy fathers in order to destroy the heresies then rife and to confirm this same catholic and apostolic creed.

—The creed of the 318 fathers at Nicaea.

—And the same of the 150 saintly fathers assembled in Constantinople.

This wise and saving creed, the gift of divine grace, was sufficient for a perfect understanding and establishment of religion. **For its teaching about **the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit is complete, and it sets out the Lord’s becoming human to those who faithfully accept it.

legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM04.HTM#2

Somehow the Fathers of Chalcedon saw an accetance of Ephesus of Constantinople I.

The creed of Nicea and of Constantinople were not identical. The council Fathers of Constantinople edited the creed to more clearly define the orthodox belief of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.(which also can be a case of Dev. of Doc.) Chalcedon must accept Constantinople precisley because the council of Ephesus states that no alterations may be applied to the creed. Chalcedon must formally approve of the orthodox alteration to the Creed. Otherwise, the councils would have contradicted themselves.

“Augustine knew nothing about Theodosius’ council of 381, and it is unlikely that anyone in the West knew much about the creed associated with that assemble(resented and in most of its canonical decisions rejected at Rome and hated at Alexandria) until it was prominently disinterred and reaffirmed by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which needed it to prove that one could gloss the Nicene creed without ‘adding’ to it(which the Council of Ephesus in 431 had forbidden).” (East and West, Henry Chadwick)

Certainly St. Ctril himself knew nothing of the creed that was adopted at Constantinople.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

You skipped over the Popes between Chalcedon and him: Leo I denied any knowledge at Rome of it, Felix III passes over it in silence when listing three Councils, as does Gelasius of decree fame.

Correct. However, I believe Pope Vigilius was the first to give the Papal confirmation, also Pope Pelagius I before that of Gregory the Great.

 

[JJR1453]

Constantinople presided from 381 on.

Wrong.

“In the summer of 382 a council of the oriental bishops, convoked by Theodosius, met in the imperial city. We still have its important profession of faith, often wrongly attributed to the Second General Council (i.e. at Constantinople in the preceding year)”

newadvent.org/cathen/04311a.htm

Also, the next year in 383 Theodosius convoked another council with the hopes of rallying all to the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. However, the 2nd Ecumenical council is the council that took place only in 381. Eventhough there were some canons that were spuriously attributed at a later date.(382)

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

Hey Isa, I have a question for you. I know its probably wrongly placed but how do you respond to individual sentences? Do you just type below the sentence you are quoting and want to respond to? And then move on to the next sentence and type below that one as well? The reason I ask is because Ive done this before but it just showed up as one big quote.

I would appreciate the help. Do you understand my question?

Maybe I should P.M. one of the Mods for tech questions?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Like I stated before, that the Emperors from the East viewed themselves as still ‘Roman’, is a historical truism for anyone who knows anything about Ancient and Early Medieval European history. But again it does nothing to weigh to your arguement. Theodosius is giving a pronouncement to his territory of the Empire,

First the text:

Imppp. Gratianus, Valentinianus et Theodosius aaa. edictum ad populum urbis Constantinopolitanae. Cunctos populos, quos clementiae nostrae regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriae episcopum virum apostolicae sanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam patris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub parili maiestate et sub pia trinitate credamus.

Hanc legem sequentes christianorum catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes vesanosque iudicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere nec conciliabula eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex caelesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos. Dat. III kal. mar. Thessalonicae Gratiano a. V et Theodosio a. I conss.

the edict is in the names of the three emperors: Gratian (at Rome), Valentinius II (at Milan) and Theodosius (at Thessalonica, at the time in the patriarchate of Rome at the time, btw) to the people of Constantinople. So although it was issued to the people of the Eastern Capital, it was done in the name of all the Roman emperors, none of whom were at Constaninople.

as you yourself have stated, and he uses the orthodox faith that was transmitted to the Romans by St. Peter as that communion and true faith that must be met by all Roman citizens. Now tell me this, if the ‘Roman Empire’ was that faith that was transmitted to it by St. Peter than why was the edict necessary?

I know you are going to be shocked, but the Romans indulged in propoganda.

From paganism to Orthodox Catholic Chrisitanity, the tone was always what was original was being restored/preserved. One of the accusations the pagans hurled at the Christians was that it was an innovation (at the time the pagans were trying to keep the Altar of Victory etc… with that argument).

If the ‘Romans’, meaning all the Empire as you have suggested, held to that faith that was preached to it by St. Peter than why the need for a council or edict?

Wasnt’ it Jerome, that arch-Latin, who said “the world awoke to a groan to find itself Arian?” (that world would be the “orbe Romano” Theodosius mentions in the post above).

Also, I don’t know how assuming Roman means only the city of Rome would get you out of the corner you are painting Theodosius in.

Why had Constantinople’s Archbishop

didn’t have one at the time. He was still a suffragan of Heracleia. He wouldn’t become an Archbishop and independent until the next year at the Second Ecumenical (ooops I mean local then Fifth Ecumenical, because the Fourth Ecumenical Council made it the Second Ecumenical Council, but then wouldn’t it be the Fourth Ecumenical Council post datum?)

and its Emperors

As the edict itself shows, no emperor was there at the time, despite it being New Rome. Hadn’t been since Julian the Apostate (proclaimed emperor in Paris) left twenty years earlier, and the emperor Valens spent most of his time on campaign.

been backing Arianism long beforehand?

Not much different from the emperors of Old Rome (many times, such as Constantius II, they were the same). as for the bishops St. Alexander (314-337), St. Paul the Confessor (337-50, exiled 339-41, 342-6) and St. Gregory (379-81) and Evangrius (370-80) no. The Arian and pagan emperors did promote Arian bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia (Arius’ patron), Macedonius, Eudoxius, Demophilos. Maximus was a usurper, but a foe of Arianism.

If the ‘Empire’ is the one that held the true faith by St. Peter than why was the ‘Roman Empire’ engulfed in heresy?

Maybe we should ask Jerome, closer to the events, and who says the world (ie. the empire of Romans, that “orbe Romano” mentioned above) went Arian.

Your argument makes no sense, but it seems you are reading Vatican I into the edict. If that were the case, one would expect some reference to Damasus as Pope and Successor (by this time Rome had acquired the title in imitation of Alexandria, the other bishop mentioned) of Peter, who is mentioned, yet Damasus is referred to by the PAGAN title “pontiff.” Or are you claiming infallibility was given to all the Romans, that is the Christians of the city?

None of your arguement makes sense.

Oh? How is it the when the popes of Rome decided to make emperors, they gave them the title “Imperator ROMANARUM” Emperor of the Romans?

It is the Romans, or christians of the city of Rome, that Theodosius speaks of.

Yes, so you keep assertingt,but nothing to back it up. Btw at the time, the pagans in Old Rome were asserting themselves: the Altar of Victory had been restored (btw. the Arian Constantius II had removed it, give credit where credit is due) and the Senate was trying to keep paganism going. Only after Theodosius issued the edict did the Christians win out in Old Rome.

How could he possibly mean ‘the Roman Empire’ when the Emperor Valens before him was a devout Arian?

And the Emperor Valentinius I in the West promoted Arianism much to St. Ambrose consternation (at this time Wulfinas’ foster son Auxentius of Milan succeeded another Auxentius of Milan to keep it the center of Arianism, which it was to remain), while he and the Emperor Valentinius I allowed paganism to continue and tried to protect it from demise.

Constantiniople was infested with Arianism to such a degree that Gregory Nazianzus had to convert his relatives house into a church for the use of the few orthodox christians left in the city.

As shown above, the Orthodox were well represented at Constantinople, the reason why the Second Ecumenical Council (or do you say Fourth?) was held there and dealt the death blow to Arianism (in the East at least. It florished at Milan, and spread from there throughout the West until the emperor from Constantinople wiped it out).

Ya sounds like the ‘Roman Empire’ really held to that faith that was preached by St. Peter.

That at New Rome did, matter of fact put that faith that was preached by St. Peter into the Creed we still say. Alas, Old Rome held out against innovation (the Pope Leo III there putting that Creed on St. Peter’s basilica with the inscription “for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith”) but in the end bought a counterfeit Creed when the pope there crowned a barbarian usurper Henry as “Emperor of the Romans,” and Henry insisted on the filioque. Selective Caesaropapism strikes again.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The creed of Nicea and of Constantinople were not identical.

Your point?

The council Fathers of Constantinople edited the creed to more clearly define the orthodox belief of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

Actually, only the Holy Spirit’s part clearer. The Son’s is actually less (except the Historical Jeus, complete with Virgin Mary, makes his appearance). And of course the Church.

Note the “God from God” part that Rome has restored to Constantinople causes not problem, unlike the innovation of the filoque.

(which also can be a case of Dev. of Doc.)

actually, no. It just repeats the Lord’s words, but filioque can be a development.

Chalcedon must accept Constantinople precisley because the council of Ephesus states that no alterations may be applied to the creed.

Constantinople says the same thing.

Chalcedon must formally approve of the orthodox alteration to the Creed. Otherwise, the councils would have contradicted themselves.

So you can grandfather it in. Jesuitry at its finest. What next, approve the Council of Jabneh to justify Jerome’s abandonment of the Church’s Septuagint for a Hebrew text?

"Augustine knew nothing about Theodosius’ council of 381,

Augustine’s ignorance of Greek cut him off from a lot of things. He shouldn’t be the be all and end all he has been made in the West (a source of a lot of the problems out there). He certainly not in the Universal Catholic Church.

and it is unlikely that anyone in the West knew much about the creed associated

They were informed, as we have already discussed.

with that assemble(resented and in most of its canonical decisions rejected at Rome and hated at Alexandria)

and yet accepted by both.

until it was prominently disinterred and reaffirmed by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which needed it to prove that one could gloss the Nicene creed without ‘adding’ to it(which the Council of Ephesus in 431 had forbidden)."

(East and West, Henry Chadwick)

Has to be known to be disinterred, or did the Fathers dabble in archeology between sessions?

Certainly St. Cyril himself knew nothing of the creed that was adopted at Constantinople.

Proof?
Both he and his uncle were quite aware of the position versus their nemesis St. John Chrysostom, who also was aware, giving his adherence to St. Meletios and NOT to Rome.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Correct. However, I believe Pope Vigilius was the first to give the Papal confirmation, also Pope Pelagius I before that of Gregory the Great.

Pope Vigilius. Isn’t he the one that was dragged to the Fifth Council, and when he refused to attend and condemn the Three Chapters, the Fathers went on without him and struck him from the diptychs? That Vigilius?

But wait. Fifth Council. That would mean it was after the Fourth Council. But you claimed the Fourth Council made the Second Ecumenical. But if Vigilius was the first to give the “papal confirmation” did he confirm Chalcedon too? Or are the Miaphysites right? Or is this another trip in the Way Back Machine to assent to unknomwn councils dug up from the past?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Wrong.

“In the summer of 382 a council of the oriental bishops, convoked by Theodosius, met in the imperial city. We still have its important profession of faith, often wrongly attributed to the Second General Council (i.e. at Constantinople in the preceding year)”

newadvent.org/cathen/04311a.htm

Also, the next year in 383 Theodosius convoked another council with the hopes of rallying all to the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. However, the 2nd Ecumenical council is the council that took place only in 381. Eventhough there were some canons that were spuriously attributed at a later date.(382)

God bless,

JJR

And this has what to do with the statment that Constantinople assumed its status on top in 381 onward? That the canon date later a year or two? I’ve already stated things were tagged onto the Council. Or is it to try to separate canon 3 from the Council. But why the argument that Rome rejected the Council on the basis of this canon? I need particulars.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hey Isa, I have a question for you. I know its probably wrongly placed but how do you respond to individual sentences? Do you just type below the sentence you are quoting and want to respond to? And then move on to the next sentence and type below that one as well? The reason I ask is because Ive done this before but it just showed up as one big quote.

I would appreciate the help. Do you understand my question?

Maybe I should P.M. one of the Mods for tech questions?

You have to press the quote box where you want to break it up, and erase the first

(the last letter is lower case so the computer doesn’t take it as a command). You have to make sure all the quotes have a beginning and ending quote command. I still often have to go back and edit by trial and error.

 

[tdgesq]

Isa,

It may be a few days before I can get back to you due to my schedule. Off the top of my head I can think of T.R. Valentine (who I don’t put much stock in), Fr. Dragas, and I believe Fr. Romanides. I will get you the quotes as time allows. Thanks for your patience.

 

[JJR1453]

First the text:

Imppp. Gratianus, Valentinianus et Theodosius aaa. edictum ad populum urbis Constantinopolitanae. Cunctos populos, quos clementiae nostrae regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriae episcopum virum apostolicae sanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam patris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub parili maiestate et sub pia trinitate credamus.

Hanc legem sequentes christianorum catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes vesanosque iudicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere nec conciliabula eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex caelesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos. Dat. III kal. mar. Thessalonicae Gratiano a. V et Theodosio a. I conss.

the edict is in the names of the three emperors: Gratian (at Rome), Valentinius II (at Milan) and Theodosius (at Thessalonica, at the time in the patriarchate of Rome at the time, btw) to the people of Constantinople. So although it was issued to the people of the Eastern Capital, it was done in the name of all the Roman emperors, none of whom were at Constaninople.

I know you are going to be shocked, but the Romans indulged in propoganda.

From paganism to Orthodox Catholic Chrisitanity, the tone was always what was original was being restored/preserved. One of the accusations the pagans hurled at the Christians was that it was an innovation (at the time the pagans were trying to keep the Altar of Victory etc… with that argument).

Wasnt’ it Jerome, that arch-Latin, who said “the world awoke to a groan to find itself Arian?” (that world would be the “orbe Romano” Theodosius mentions in the post above).

Also, I don’t know how assuming Roman means only the city of Rome would get you out of the corner you are painting Theodosius in.

Not much different from the emperors of Old Rome (many times, such as Constantius II, they were the same). as for the bishops St. Alexander (314-337), St. Paul the Confessor (337-50, exiled 339-41, 342-6) and St. Gregory (379-81) and Evangrius (370-80) no. The Arian and pagan emperors did promote Arian bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia (Arius’ patron), Macedonius, Eudoxius, Demophilos. Maximus was a usurper, but a foe of Arianism.

Maybe we should ask Jerome, closer to the events, and who says the world (ie. the empire of Romans, that “orbe Romano” mentioned above) went Arian.

Your argument makes no sense, but it seems you are reading Vatican I into the edict. If that were the case, one would expect some reference to Damasus as Pope and Successor (by this time Rome had acquired the title in imitation of Alexandria, the other bishop mentioned) of Peter, who is mentioned, yet Damasus is referred to by the PAGAN title “pontiff.” Or are you claiming infallibility was given to all the Romans, that is the Christians of the city?

Yes, so you keep assertingt,but nothing to back it up. Btw at the time, the pagans in Old Rome were asserting themselves: the Altar of Victory had been restored (btw. the Arian Constantius II had removed it, give credit where credit is due) and the Senate was trying to keep paganism going. Only after Theodosius issued the edict did the Christians win out in Old Rome.

And the Emperor Valentinius I in the West promoted Arianism much to St. Ambrose consternation (at this time Wulfinas’ foster son Auxentius of Milan succeeded another Auxentius of Milan to keep it the center of Arianism, which it was to remain), while he and the Emperor Valentinius I allowed paganism to continue and tried to protect it from demise.

***Have you forgotten the arguement for which you assert? Because you’ve only strengthened mine, and have seemed to, unsurprisingly, contradicted yourself. You bring up many instances where the ‘Roman World’ has subscribed to the Arian heresy. How do you then continue to contend that Theodosius views the "Roman World’ as that which that has received the true faith from St. Peter?
Moreover, you have taken the quote WILDLY out of context! Is there any reference in this quote to paganism? No, its directed at heretical Christianity, and Theodosius requires that all the citizens adhere to Catholic Christianity. Here, allow me to quote from two elucidations on this issue:

[/quote]

[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[JJR1453]

And this has what to do with the statment that Constantinople assumed its status on top in 381 onward? That the canon date later a year or two? I’ve already stated things were tagged onto the Council. Or is it to try to separate canon 3 from the Council. But why the argument that Rome rejected the Council on the basis of this canon? I need particulars.

No, its just to point out that Constantinople in 381, and the synod in 382, were different synods. Your earlier quote seemed to suggest that you believed they were the same council.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

Pope Vigilius. Isn’t he the one that was dragged to the Fifth Council, and when he refused to attend and condemn the Three Chapters, the Fathers went on without him and struck him from the diptychs? That Vigilius?

But wait. Fifth Council. That would mean it was after the Fourth Council. But you claimed the Fourth Council made the Second Ecumenical. But if Vigilius was the first to give the “papal confirmation” did he confirm Chalcedon too? Or are the Miaphysites right? Or is this another trip in the Way Back Machine to assent to unknomwn councils dug up from the past?

Pope Leo confirmed Chalcedon, here I will refer you to my earlier posts regarding Leo and Chalcedon. The preceding Popes are silent to Constantinople but, as has been stated, Vigilius, Pelagisu II, and Gregory the Great all consider the decrees of faith at Constantinople as Ecumenical, but not its canons.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

Augustine’s ignorance of Greek cut him off from a lot of things. He shouldn’t be the be all and end all he has been made in the West (a source of a lot of the problems out there). He certainly not in the Universal Catholic Church.

Proof?
Both he and his uncle were quite aware of the position versus their nemesis St. John Chrysostom, who also was aware, giving his adherence to St. Meletios and NOT to Rome.

Oh? Like Photius’ ignorance to Latin? Also, the Eastern church has never produced such a theologian as St. Augustine. And that is not a Latin-loving quote, just plain fact.

“In 429-30 Cyril of Alexandria could write in a way presupposing ignorance of the creed’s existance.” (East and West, Chadwick)

Here is a preview link. Notice the notes at the bottom of the page.
books.google.com/books?id=staKxp3zWVEC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=Henry+Chadwick+East+and+West&source=web&ots=2UNdcfpaJE&sig=psS-71_tig8Xe33oyNkvDfQYew4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA27,M1

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry;3988789:

First the text:

Imppp. Gratianus, Valentinianus et Theodosius aaa. edictum ad populum urbis Constantinopolitanae. Cunctos populos, quos clementiae nostrae regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriae episcopum virum apostolicae sanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam patris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub parili maiestate et sub pia trinitate credamus.

Hanc legem sequentes christianorum catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes vesanosque iudicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere nec conciliabula eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex caelesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos. Dat. III kal. mar. Thessalonicae Gratiano a. V et Theodosio a. I conss.

***Have you forgotten the arguement for which you assert? Because you’ve only strengthened mine, and have seemed to, unsurprisingly, contradicted yourself. You bring up many instances where the ‘Roman World’ has subscribed to the Arian heresy. How do you then continue to contend that Theodosius views the "Roman World’ as that which that has received the true faith from St. Peter?

Simple. Once Saved, Always Saved is another inovation and heresy.

He does claim (rightly so) that St. Peter gave the true faith to the Romans, which by this time means the subjects of the empire. Just like he claims that he is the emperor of the Romans, although he was not in Rome, was not from Rome (he was from Spain), was not made emperor in Rome (that was a big thing centuries past, hence the year of three emperors). The abbreviations show he was Roman consul at the time, though not in Rome. Btw, but this time Old Rome had ceased to be the capital, but just a symbol.

Btw Treadgold’s “A History of Byzantine State and Society” deals with the change of Roman into somewhat how Yankee has gone from New Englander to “American” (except perhaps for some pockets of the South), or English has become synomous to British (much to the consternation of the Scott and Welsh, not to mention the Irish). He also attributes a lot of the substance of the change to the universal adoption of Christianity, in whatever variety. It also obtained the connotation of Catholic/Orthodox, and was used in that sense to set off the Arian Germans in the empire, who were seen as aliens in every sense of the word. In Armenian, Aramaic and Arabic it had already become the word for Greek.

Moreover, you have taken the quote WILDLY out of context! Is there any reference in this quote to paganism?

The title pontiff is pagan, and at the contemporaries were quite aware of that: Gratian gave up the title because he said it did not befit a Christian.

The Theodosian Code has lots to say about pagans and hertics besides the Catholics. That’s the context of the edict.

No, its directed at heretical Christianity, and Theodosius requires that all the citizens adhere to Catholic Christianity.

No, it is directed at the Roman citizens, and telling them if they are real citzens, get with the program. Much like the claim at the founding of the Anglican Church: if you are English, the king is the head of your church.

Here, allow me to quote from two elucidations on this issue:

“The mind of the East was not so clearly settled. But in the East as well the experience of the Arian controversy and its outcome had established a way of thinking that became quite clear in the imperial laws of 380 by which Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the state religion and at the same time used his power to put an end to controversies over matters of belief. He decreed that the faith preached to the Romans by St. Peter and now proclaimed by Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria should be the accepted rule of faith for the entire empire. On the one hand, Rome alone did not establish the norm, but rather Rome and Alexandria, the primary sees in West and East. On the other hand we should note that the source of that faith was St. Peter and his preaching in Rome. There was, then, a certain difference in rank: Rome is the original cource.” (Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present, Schatz)

As Alexandria was also promoted as a Petrine See by the popes of Rome, and the city of Rome is nowhere mentioned (just implied by the pagan title pontiff) the “Romans” of course being the point of contention here, is begging the question. Again, other edicts speak of other sees. And Romans.

Also,

"The Code of Roman Law does not seem the sort of book in which one would find the arguements for the Roman Primacy. Yet it contains the edict of Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius: 'We desire that all the people who are governed by the laws of our Clemency shall profess the religion which Peter, the divine Apostle, taught to the Romans, which is manifest as the one still left there by him,

check the text above: Fortescue is embellishing with words that are not there. That not translation, it’s spin.

which, as is well known, is followed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexnadria, a man of Apostolic holiness; that, according to the Apostolic teaching and the faith of the Gospel, we believe in one Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in equal majesty in the Holy Trinity. We command that those who follow this law be called by the name of Catholic Christians, and we judge the others to be mad and foolish to bear the shame of a heretical belief. Nor shall their conventicles be called churches.’ St. Damasus was Pope from 366 to 384. With his name the Emperors couple that of Peter, the Patriarch of the second see in Christendom, which had been the bulwark of the faith in Arian times(Athanasius). But the standard by which they measure who is to be called a ‘Catholic Christian’ is the faith left by St. Peter at Rome."

(The Orthodox Eastern Church, Fortescue)

Yes, very interesting eisogesis, of which Fortescue is the master. He is particularly good for projecting his ultramontanism on the Greeks (admittedly, the Greeks give him a lot to with). If his agree could hold, he wouldn’t have needed the embellishments.

From the quote you can’t tell if he’s read the Code, as it contains lots about the Church (one edict a few years earlier by Gratian and Valerinius makes the pope of Rome the supreme bishop in the West; an edict a few years later orders all clergy not in communion with a list of bishops, starting with St. Nectaris of Constantinople who was NOT in communion with Rome (who is not mentioned) to hand over their Churches to the Catholic bishops in communion with Nectarius et alia; another makes the pope of Alexandria supreme in Egypt, etc.) For a summary in English:
fourthcentury.com/old/Theodosian/CTH16.htm

Once again, one quote seemingly on Rome is wretched out of the context where other sees (indeed, the quote in question mentions Alexandria, which has to be downplayed and explained away) are also dealt with. Btw, it also has an edict about the Second Council, which was promulgated in both halves of the empire as a litmus test of Christianity.

Btw, the Code only starts with the edicts of Constantine, the first official Christian emperor (Philip the Arab was a crypto-Christian).

I would only ask that you also provide some evidence, or even provide some scholarship, any scholarship, that may weigh to your arguement. As I know it, I have never heard of anyone, other than yourself, assert such a skewed arguement and Point of view on this edict of 380. Again, please do not respond regarding this issue unless you can provide some evidence that anyone holds to the same contention as yourself..

Check above.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry;3988789:

Oh? How is it the when the popes of Rome decided to make emperors, they gave them the title “Imperator ROMANARUM” Emperor of the Romans

***This I will fully admit the Byzantines were quite justified in their aggravations with Rome. However, we must not forget the treatment that Rome received at times from the Emperor in the East. Highlight Justinian II and his orders to his represenative Zacharius to obtain Pope Sergius and bring him back as a prisoner. However Zacharius found himself hiding under the Pope’s bed in the Lateran while Pope Sergius pleaded for his life to the citizens of Rome and the imperial troops of Ravenna. Just one example among many.

Like Vigilius.

As shown above, the Orthodox were well represented at Constantinople, the reason why the Second Ecumenical Council (or do you say Fourth?) was held there and dealt the death blow to Arianism (in the East at least. It florished at Milan, and spread from there throughout the West until the emperor from Constantinople wiped it out).

***Incorrect. Only after Theodosius came into the city and gave all the churches to the Nicene orthodox. As has been stated before the election of a Nicene Emperor Constantinople lay infested with Arianism. Also, if Constantinople was such the 'death blow" then why did Theodosius feel the need to assemble once again in 383?

For one thing, an edict of that year shows for one thing that some Catholics were being Donatist about things, and refused to accept former Arians.

Once again, please do not respond to the subject of Theodosius’ edict unless you can somehow prove that anyone else holds to the same opinion as yourself. I do not wich to be uncharitable but It has become very tiresome responding to posts that seem to contradict themselves. Maybe others could give weight to your rather distorted arguement?

Take a glance at the edicts for one thing, and get back to me.

fourthcentury.com/old/Theodosian/CTH16.htm

The colletion of Meyendorff on the Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church, and Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions touches on these questions. A case in point, a few centuries later St. Cyril is making the argument that “render unto Caesar” means not the state but specifically the emperor of the Romans, and hence all nations much bow to the emperor at New Rome. The hymns of Nativity also making the point that Augstus called the census so the whole world could be enrolled into the Church, making the connection between empire and Church.

edit: I apologize Isa, I have chopped up this post trying to follow your advice, again, my apologies. I have taken extra measures to create clarity. I have inserted (***) before my posts to split the post up.

no problem.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Oh? Like Photius’ ignorance to Latin?

Neither the Bible, Creed or the rest of the Councils were written in Latin. Ignorance of Greek was a far bigger problem.

Also, the Eastern church has never produced such a theologian as St. Augustine.

Sure didn’t.

And that is not a Latin-loving quote, just plain fact.

Oh, you’re proud of that.

I]“In 429-30 Cyril of Alexandria could write in a way presupposing ignorance of the creed’s existance.”

(East and West, Chadwick)

Here is a preview link. Notice the notes at the bottom of the page.
books.google.com/books?id=staKxp3zWVEC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=Henry+Chadwick+East+and+West&source=web&ots=2UNdcfpaJE&sig=psS-71_tig8Xe33oyNkvDfQYew4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA27,M1

I might have to get back on this, my computor is having trouble with links now.

 

[Gofer]

Politics + ego + jaundiced eyes = what can one say?

 

[byzgirl]

Common Ground With Eastern Orthodox

excerpts from The Marks of the Church and Eastern Othodoxy" found at: "http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=4752

"Contrary to Protestant sectarians who posit an ideal invisible Church, Eastern Orthodox (like Catholics) do believe in a visible Church which is indefectible in the preservation of the orthodox faith handed down by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Despite unresolved disputes concerning the Church’s organ of infallibility some Eastern Orthodox theologians still theoretically consider their Church infallible when defining dogma. There remains “common ground” in their agreeing with Catholics that visibility, indefectibility, and infallibility are attributes and properties belonging to the Church’s nature as the Body of Christ. Also, like Catholics, they believe that outside the Church there is no salvation. They also believe that it is necessary that every human being should be incorporated into the organism of their visible communion. Also, like Catholics, they acknowledge that one can become a member of the “true Church” only if that Church is knowable as such, and can be with certainty distinguished from every other claimant. Since God, in his wisdom and justice cannot make demands which it would be impossible for man to comply with, the true Church must of necessity be visible, so that she may easily be recognized with certainty and clearly distinguished from any counterfeit or heterodox body.

In the past there was general acceptance by Eastern Orthodox theologians of the concept of marks of the Church (our “via notarum”) and an attempt to verify the traditional marks of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity for their own communion.

Catholics, however, should be aware of the unwarranted contemporary reinterpretation of these marks of the Church by dissident Eastern Orthodox theologians which, in effect, empties them of their visible and external character so as to make them useless to the ordinary person for discovering the True Church. This is doubtless due to the embarrassment resulting from such theologians’ acknowledged failure to demonstrate that modern Eastern Orthodoxy is more one, more holy, more Catholic, and more apostolic than the more unified, more impressive with a plethora of well-known Saints, more geographically world-wide, and far more active missionary body known throughout the world as the Catholic Church under the supreme authority of the Successor of Peter.

Visible Marks Rendered Invisible

It has not been sufficiently noted by Catholic writers that “alleged deficiencies” of the fourfold marks have constrained Eastern Orthodox theologians to substitute the “mark” of “immutability” or “indefectibility” or “orthodoxy” for distinguishing the True Church from all other similar heterodox bodies. Thus, Greek and Russian Orthodox seminarians are taught: “Only that Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ which truly and immutably preserves the infallible teaching of the ancient universal Church, and remains faithful to her in all things. This note is commonly used by our theologians.” Since Catholics also claim that their Church has alone preserved in all its integrity and purity the “infallible teaching of the ancient Church,” this “mark” provides no criterion to resolve the debate between similar but rival bodies. Immutability of doctrine, indefectibility in doctrine, orthodoxy of doctrine, and even infallibility in teaching doctrine, though all properties essential to the true Church, do not constitute outwardly visible marks of the Church at all. They do not help identify the true Church from a heterodox rival making the same claims. It should not be forgotten that the ancient Assyrian (Nestorian) Church and the Oriental Orthodox (Monophysite) communion continue in our own days to claim complete orthodoxy in faith and to accuse the Eastern Orthodox churches (as well as the Catholic Church) of having innovated in matters of doctrine. Professing their adherence to Apostolic Tradition, these ancient Eastern Christian churches reject some of the Seven Ecumenical Councils considered by the Byzantine Greco-Slav autocephalous churches to be normative of orthodoxy.

The fatal consequence of Eastern Orthodox rejection of the traditional fourfold marks of the Church as visible and outward signs of the true Church is the “mystical” spiritualization of each mark. The visible Unity or “oneness” of the Church is reduced to a spiritual unity of faith in the Holy Spirit. But, an invisible “spiritual or mystical unity” cannot, of course, serve as a visible mark of the true Church. The mark “Holy,” understood as the possession of “holy doctrine,” will certainly not be questioned by Catholics as a feature of the true Church but “holy doctrine” cannot be a visible mark of the Church since the determination of holy (and true or orthodox) doctrine depends on a prior identification of the true Church which teaches holy doctrine. The term “catholic” similarly has become identified by Eastern Orthodox writers with “orthodox” (but “orthodox” is an invisible quality subject to subjective interpretations and its use as a mark begs the question as to whether the dissident Byzantine Greco-Slav churches in their schism from the Petrine See of Rome have truly remained orthodox in every regard). In stressing catholicity as an internal quality and equating it simplistically with “orthodoxy,” one sees a vain effort to offset the Catholic Church’s “universal ecclesiology” with its obvious worldwide geographical diffusion and continuous missionary expansion.

Eastern Orthodox writers are certainly correct in understanding “Apostolic” as the true Church teaching the same orthodox doctrine that was taught by the Apostles but, once again, the possession of “apostolic doctrine or teaching” cannot serve as a visible mark. This is because knowledge of the entire body of doctrine committed by Christ to his Apostles presumes a person’s having already identified the true Church which, in fact, does and must teach all the apostolic doctrine which Christ committed to the Apostles. Moreover, since every dissident Christian communion and sect may be said to teach some apostolic doctrines, the ordinary inquirer seeking the true Church would find it practically impossible to decide with certainty which conflicting doctrines put before him are in agreement with what the Apostles did teach.

Interestingly, all the various dissident Eastern churches (not just the Eastern Orthodox communion), which have a venerable hierarchy of bishops of apostolic origin seek to apply exclusively to themselves the term “Orthodox,” thereby claim to preserve unfailingly the orthodox doctrine handed down from the Apostles. The Eastern Orthodox are especially noted for declaring “orthodoxy” the one unfailing mark of the true Church. However, as previously noted, “orthodoxy” is not a visible mark and therefore fails utterly to identify that body of Christians which is identical with the original Church of the Apostles described by St. Paul as the “pillar and ground of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). **It is not orthodoxy or “teaching the right faith” that is the visible touchstone of the truth, but rather the true Church which is the touchstone of orthodoxy and authentic apostolic doctrine." **

byzgirl