Follow up on SS

[SyroMalankara]

Hi spina,

While we may interpret Matthew differently, I don’t think Lutherans would balk at the idea of a primacy of unity held by the pope. I don’t think Orthodoxy would, either. It is that universal immediate jurisdiction that seems lacking from the early Church.

Jon

Jon, the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics would be right to wonder about this phrase “universal immediate jurisdiction”, since it seems as though the Pope of Rome is going to get involved or overrule local day-to-day decisions of local bishops. This kind of “Roman involvement” was never present for the Eastern Churches. The East has a bit of a case when it comes to wondering about what that means.

However, why wouldn’t the Pope of Rome have immediate, universal jurisdiction over the Western Church? He is, after all, the Patriarch and Prime Bishop for all Occidentals. The Western Church recognized this authority time and again with Council after Council, and Synod after Synod. That means before Lutherans were Lutheran, and Anglicans were Anglican, and Calvinists were Calvinists - they were all under the Pope of Rome’s universal, immediate jurisdiction as they should have been. Now, of course, historically there were variances and local negotiations between the local Bishop and/or the secular rulers, etc. But as far as Spiritual authority, yes, the Pope of Rome has always had “universal immediate jurisdiction” for Western Christians.

 

[spina1953]

I think your reading is correct - in that the majority of the ECF did hold to the Chair of St. Peter as more than just an honorific.

Conversely, they also didn’t act as if the Chair of St. Peter was nesessarily always infallible and had immediate jurisdiction - for if they really thought that, then there would be no need for church councils regarding core tenants of the faith, or at least no need for protracted multi-year church councils at least.

Hi benjohnson: It seems to me that whenever there was a dispute between one Church or a Bishop that was not thought to be a major problem that needed the Chair of Peter to resolve taking the problem to another Bishop to resolve seems to me that was done in most cases. it is only when the problem was too big to resolve that it went to Rome for help in getting it taken care of.
During the first three hundred years of Church history there were off and on persecutions so that it was difficult for the Church even in Rome to handle whatever problems that arose. it also took time due to the distance one had to travel from one place to another. We need to also remember that the Roman empire was pagan and remained so even till the 400’sAD. This I think helped mainly in the East to develop the notion of independence of the various Churches and those who felt that they had some type of jurisdiction over them from that of Rome.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Joe, I am thinking that perhaps we are asking the wrong question here; maybe that’s why we seem to talk past each other on SS.

Would you agree that the Scriptures contains the truth necessary for salvation through Christ? Do we need more than that for salvation?

Maybe or maybe not the Scriptures contain the truth necessary for salvation. It is a notion one assumes one way or the other and cannot be proven. I think most people have the pious belief that scriptures do contain the truth necessary.

Now, the question, “do we need more than that for salvation” is ambiguous. Does it mean that we need the scriptures only, or the truth only?

'Scripture only, or bible only," and “sufficiency of scripture” are not the same concept.
Because it is never the bible alone. It is always the bible plus something else. For instance, the original inspired autographs are lost. Therefore it is the autographs plus the copyists.

Scripture was written thousands of years ago in languages alien to most people. Therefore it is bible plus the translators.

The translators learned their Greek and Hebrew from teachers and textbooks, so it is bible plus teachers and textbooks.

There are so many human intermediaries between the individual and inspired scripture–all fallible, and all that we have to trust.

Furthermore, few people actually practice bible alone. They rely on a preacher to tell them what the bible says! Why else listen to long sermons on a hard bench? (Of course there are a few who do practice bible alone–these are the ones who derive their own doctrines from the bible and accumulate followers and begin a new denomination.)

And, supposing that the scriptures contain all the truth necessary–does that mean just anyone can read them and get that truth? History and experience show that the answer is no. Hence, again, 'sufficiency of scripture" does not mean 'bible alone."

But, now, assuming the sufficiency of scripture, we have to ask the question: For whom or what is the bible sufficient? Obviously, scripture is not sufficient for just anybody. It would seem the answer is he or what which has the tools and qualifications to ascertain the truths in scripture. Like, there may be gold in the rocks, but it does you no good unless you have a smelter to get the gold out of the rocks!

Where is this smelter to be found?

Well, who or what wrote scripture to begin with? Where did scripture come from? Scripture was written by members of God’s family, His household. Written by members of the community of faith, the assembly of God, the church. Scripture was written by God’s people, to God’s people, for God’s people.

So, the evident conclusion is that scripture is best understood within the context of God’s people!

After all, we all know that scripture verses must be read in context. Which also means that scripture, the bible itself must be read in its proper context! And what else could that proper context be but the Church, God’s assembly, His faith community.

The Church is the proper smelter and the proper home for scripture. It is the Church to whom scripture is sufficient.

From this we conclude that scripture is not meant for individuals to interpret on their own apart from the faith community that gave birth to scripture.

This is my answer to the OP’s question.

 

[spina1953]

Hi spina,

While we may interpret Matthew differently, I don’t think Lutherans would balk at the idea of a primacy of unity held by the pope. I don’t think Orthodoxy would, either. It is that universal immediate jurisdiction that seems lacking from the early Church.

Jon

Hi Jon: I agree that many interpret Matthew differently. However, this idea of primacy of unity does not really solve the problem of one head. I rather doubt that the Pope would interfere or try to micro manage all the Churches in union with the Pope as that would never work, since more often then not individual Churches in union with Rome resolve their own issues without the Pope’s having to do it for them. What seems to me to be what the Pope stands for is unity of doctrine and belief that all have the same understanding and beliefs of what is taught, not so much who is running the Church as some CEO. But that’s just my opinion.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea,

I agree. I have looked for evidence in the ECFs that documents a challenge Papal Primacy/Supremacy, and have not found any. Finally I gave up looking, realizing that it there was a record of such a challenge, I would have heard about it over and over again and over again on the threads. A challenge like that, from an orthodox Christian, no matter how vague and unimportant, would have been a major part of every Protestant Apologetic effort for the last 500 years. Thus, since I have not seen such a challenge in the 12 years or so that I have been ‘doing this’, that means that none doesn’t exist. The only things that exist are the kinds of things that you posted and there are MANY more.

This brings us back to the double standard employed by Protestantism. In order for them to believe a Catholic point, that point needs to come down the mountain on gold tablets, and still there will be doubts. Yet, all they have to do to ‘prove’ their point to us is to state their opinions. It seems to me to revolve around the difference in the manner by which Protestants and Catholics are led by the Holy Spirit.

Great post on those quotes BTW. Very compelling stuff, that is unless your mind is already made up and no additional evidence is allowable.

In regards to these kinds of issues what kind and quantity of evidence from the Fathers would be ‘convincing’? From what I have seen over the years, the truthful answer for some people would be:

“None. I have already determined that the Catholic doctrine of (fill in the blank) is not supported in the ECFS.”

God Bless You Nice, Topper

I too studied the writings of the ECF and researched over and over and over and I simply couldn’t find any writing or complaint by any ECF against Rome, especially in the matters I posted. Where are those writings against the papacy?

 

[Nicea325]

I think your reading is correct - in that the majority of the ECF did hold to the Chair of St. Peter as more than just an honorific.

Conversely, they also didn’t act as if the Chair of St. Peter was nesessarily always infallible and had immediate jurisdiction - for if they really thought that, then there would be no need for church councils regarding core tenants of the faith, or at least no need for protracted multi-year church councils at least.

Well infallibility is an entire separate and distinct issue in reference to what we are discussing here. Well immediate action was not a focal or of a great interest because every bishop or patriarch had jurisdiction to resolve matters. However, the several cases I posted were not considered to be “small” matters and the point being made here is that such cases were presented to Rome to resolve.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Nicea,

Thanks for your response.

I too studied the writings of the ECF and researched over and over and over and I simply couldn’t find any writing or complaint by any ECF against Rome, especially in the matters I posted. Where are those writings against the papacy?

Indeed…I fully understand where our separated brethen the Orthodox stand with the on-going debate of primacy. Not to be rude or offensive,but to this day, I truly do not understand why such cases or ECF writings position/view on the Bishop of Rome are understood in a totally different light? I just do not get it? My years of studying the ECF and their own words on the Primacy of Rome do not seem to express what Orthodox express. I just cannot wrap it around my mind where the writings of the ECF express the same sentiments as Orthodoxs,Anglicans,Lutherans etc?

Did the term of primacy change after the split? I do not view the eastern ECF position of the Primacy of Rome in lieu with Post-Constantinople.

I agree. On things like this where all of the evidence (in the Fathers) support the Catholic position and nothing, nothing is found in the Fathers which refutes it (as in a challenge to the authority of the papacy), I find it astonishing that people can claim that they don’t see ANY evidence. It makes me wonder. Over the years I have seen this on several different issues.

Possibly I have at least a partial explanation for this phenomenon and I can relate it by way of a story about a really great Protestant friend who is one of the finest Christians I know. When we lived in the same area, she and I, and her husband would often go out to dinner with our Bibles, pointing out various passages to bolster our positions. We were quite a geeky sight and it was great fun.

One day, I was waxing poetically (of course) about some Catholic Doctrine and I pressed my point. She looked at me very seriously and said “But Topper, if that were true………………………(ten second pause)……” I finished her sentence for her by saying “You would already know it – right?” She sort of leaned up in her seat and almost shouted “YES!”. Immediately she realized what she had said, which was BTW, far too much. We still laugh about it.

She is very much a SS sort of Christian, and like all Protestants (to one degree or another) very much believes that the Holy Spirit leads them to correctly understand Scripture. As such, and especially in the least Confessional variations of Protestatism, what they believe today – is what the Holy Spirit has ‘convicted’ them to believe. Since the Holy Spirit does not lie, thus ipso facto, as a true Christian, what they believe is sort of automatically the Truth. So when she said essentially “But if that were true I would already know it” she was only verifying the role that Private Interpretation plays with ALL SS Christians. Some can claim to be “Confessional”, but many of those still believe in PI under the layers of Confessional doctrine.

It goes sort of like this – I know how much I love Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. I also know that the Holy Spirit is sent to all True Christians so we they can correctly understand Scripture. Therefore, what I believe is true.

At another dinner, I was ‘selling’ the Catholic Sacraments, and was working through Extreme Unction. I stated that the Bible said that it involved the forgiveness of sins (……and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven, James 5:14). (With her degree in Scripture from a Bible College), she looked at me like I had three heads and told me: “The Bible does NOT say THAT!” Whereupon I showed her James 5:14 and watched her jaw drop. She was visibly shaken, recognizing immediately what it meant. She told me that she had read the Bible cover to cover a dozen times and had never ‘seen’ that passage before.

Of course she HAD read it before but it had never entered her consciousness because it ‘did not compute’. She had seen the words but they didn’t jive with what she already knew (for certain) to be the truth, so her mind rejected what her eyes told her and she didn’t even notice the actual text.

Anyway, I think my point is that when somebody has so much of their identity tied up in a doctrinal concept, they can be blinded to the evidence in front of them. It also appears to me that when that doctrinal belief is that they are led personally by the Holy Spirit to correctly understand the doctrinal teachings in Scripture, the blindness only increases.

Nicea, I would be interested to know if you have ever experienced anything like this in your various discussions, and if you have any other theories as to how people can seemingly fail to see obvious facts. BTW, an obvious example would be the failure to recognize the results of SS.

God Bless You Nicea, Topper

 

[SyCarl]

Case 3: Cyprian is dealing with Basilides and Marcial, he begs Pope Cornelius (251-253) not to accept their appeal. St.Cyprian asks Pope Stephen I (254-257) to intervene in the affair of Marcian, bishop of Arles, who was a Novatian; he urges the Pope to excommunicate this heretic and replace him with a Catholic bishop.

Comment: Where did Cyprian get the idea the Bishop of Rome has such a power or duty?

What about Cyprian calling the 7th Council of Carthage in his dispute with Stephen over the baptism of heretics? Cyprian certainly didn’t defer to any authority there.

 

[joe371]

Hi Jon: I agree that many interpret Matthew differently. However, this idea of primacy of unity does not really solve the problem of one head. I rather doubt that the Pope would interfere or try to micro manage all the Churches in union with the Pope as that would never work, since more often then not individual Churches in union with Rome resolve their own issues without the Pope’s having to do it for them. What seems to me to be what the Pope stands for is unity of doctrine and belief that all have the same understanding and beliefs of what is taught, not so much who is running the Church as some CEO. But that’s just my opinion.

This is where the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church becomes so important, especially since it functions on a global scale.

 

[joe371]

What about Cyprian calling the 7th Council of Carthage in his dispute with Stephen over the baptism of heretics? Cyprian certainly didn’t defer to any authority there.

Cyprian is quoted often as deferring to the Catholic Church authority, so what you are suggesting, even if it is true, cannot mean that he did not defer to CC authority.

 

[JonNC]

One might argue this point either way, that “universal immediate jurisdiction” is neither ruled out nor proven by the ECFs. But might we draw some conclusions based on our own times? As recently as 1960 the great majority of Christians were committed to a common New Testament canon, and assumed mostly the same core elements of doctrine, with some outliers. The secular culture for centuries frequently violated Christian truth and morality, but they always knew what truth and goodness they were denying - and generally came back to it.

In 1960, a “primacy of unity” might have been sufficient. Implicitly that is in fact what we had, and it was adequate then. In 2014 we have an aggressive secular culture that not only violates truth and goodness but redefines them. We have many churches that are now in effect captives of the secular media. Is the Spirit saying anything to us through our observation of the last 2 generations? I don’t mean that God’s Truth changes to fit modern times, but our understanding of verses that refer to the Church is affected by our knowlege of new data - and our own fragility.

I actually agree with much of this. While even in Lutheranism one sees pockets of submission to the new secular “norms”, the Catholic Church seems immune to them. In this way, it remains a good thing for other communions to resemble her.
But if the claim of universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction has the effect of dividing the Church (not even speaking of Reformation communions), then it seems that a primacy of unity is difficult to employ.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics would be right to wonder about this phrase “universal immediate jurisdiction”, since it seems as though the Pope of Rome is going to get involved or overrule local day-to-day decisions of local bishops. This kind of “Roman involvement” was never present for the Eastern Churches. The East has a bit of a case when it comes to wondering about what that means.

**However, why wouldn’t the Pope of Rome have immediate, universal jurisdiction over the Western Church? He is, after all, the Patriarch and Prime Bishop for all Occidentals. The Western Church recognized this authority time and again with Council after Council, and Synod after Synod. **That means before Lutherans were Lutheran, and Anglicans were Anglican, and Calvinists were Calvinists - they were all under the Pope of Rome’s universal, immediate jurisdiction as they should have been. Now, of course, historically there were variances and local negotiations between the local Bishop and/or the secular rulers, etc. But as far as Spiritual authority, yes, the Pope of Rome has always had “universal immediate jurisdiction” for Western Christians.

Hi Syro,
I think you are absolutely right, ISTM, because our confessions are clear when it cites Nicea, saying:

VI.** The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West.** From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.

We as Lutherans, I think, would do well to remember this, but as long as he claims for himself supreme jurisdiction, it is hard for us, as Lutherans, to justify a submission to his western jurisdiction.

Jon

 

[spina1953]

Jon, the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics would be right to wonder about this phrase “universal immediate jurisdiction”, since it seems as though the Pope of Rome is going to get involved or overrule local day-to-day decisions of local bishops. This kind of “Roman involvement” was never present for the Eastern Churches. The East has a bit of a case when it comes to wondering about what that means.

However, why wouldn’t the Pope of Rome have immediate, universal jurisdiction over the Western Church? He is, after all, the Patriarch and Prime Bishop for all Occidentals. The Western Church recognized this authority time and again with Council after Council, and Synod after Synod. That means before Lutherans were Lutheran, and Anglicans were Anglican, and Calvinists were Calvinists - they were all under the Pope of Rome’s universal, immediate jurisdiction as they should have been. Now, of course, historically there were variances and local negotiations between the local Bishop and/or the secular rulers, etc. But as far as Spiritual authority, yes, the Pope of Rome has always had “universal immediate jurisdiction” for Western Christians.

Hi Syro Malankra: I think you made a great post and makes much sense. Universal jurisdiction and immediate jurisdiction are two different things and it seems to me if I am correct in my thinking that it is one reason why the split between East and West. I really do not see the Pope trying to micro manage all of the Churches in union with Him and also unless there is cause for the Pope to intervene I would think that he would let local jurisdiction handle the problem.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I actually agree with much of this. While even in Lutheranism one sees pockets of submission to the new secular “norms”, the Catholic Church seems immune to them. In this way, it remains a good thing for other communions to resemble her.
But if the claim of universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction has the effect of dividing the Church (not even speaking of Reformation communions), then it seems that a primacy of unity is difficult to employ.

Jon

The Vatican hierarchy, perhaps, Jon. But go to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and say that the Catholic Church is immune to secular norms.

 

[Nicea325]

What about Cyprian calling the 7th Council of Carthage in his dispute with Stephen over the baptism of heretics? Cyprian certainly didn’t defer to any authority there.

So by calling by a council proves he did not defer to the authority of the CC? You are merely isolating one incident as some sort of evidence against the authority of the CC. Do you have Cyprian’s own words were he rejected such authority?

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea,

Thanks for your response.

I agree. On things like this where all of the evidence (in the Fathers) support the Catholic position and nothing, nothing is found in the Fathers which refutes it (as in a challenge to the authority of the papacy), I find it astonishing that people can claim that they don’t see ANY evidence. It makes me wonder. Over the years I have seen this on several different issues.

Possibly I have at least a partial explanation for this phenomenon and I can relate it by way of a story about a really great Protestant friend who is one of the finest Christians I know. When we lived in the same area, she and I, and her husband would often go out to dinner with our Bibles, pointing out various passages to bolster our positions. We were quite a geeky sight and it was great fun.

One day, I was waxing poetically (of course) about some Catholic Doctrine and I pressed my point. She looked at me very seriously and said “But Topper, if that were true………………………(ten second pause)……” I finished her sentence for her by saying “You would already know it – right?” She sort of leaned up in her seat and almost shouted “YES!”. Immediately she realized what she had said, which was BTW, far too much. We still laugh about it.

She is very much a SS sort of Christian, and like all Protestants (to one degree or another) very much believes that the Holy Spirit leads them to correctly understand Scripture. As such, and especially in the least Confessional variations of Protestatism, what they believe today – is what the Holy Spirit has ‘convicted’ them to believe. Since the Holy Spirit does not lie, thus ipso facto, as a true Christian, what they believe is sort of automatically the Truth. So when she said essentially “But if that were true I would already know it” she was only verifying the role that Private Interpretation plays with ALL SS Christians. Some can claim to be “Confessional”, but many of those still believe in PI under the layers of Confessional doctrine.

It goes sort of like this – I know how much I love Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. I also know that the Holy Spirit is sent to all True Christians so we they can correctly understand Scripture. Therefore, what I believe is true.

At another dinner, I was ‘selling’ the Catholic Sacraments, and was working through Extreme Unction. I stated that the Bible said that it involved the forgiveness of sins (……and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven, James 5:14). (With her degree in Scripture from a Bible College), she looked at me like I had three heads and told me: “The Bible does NOT say THAT!” Whereupon I showed her James 5:14 and watched her jaw drop. She was visibly shaken, recognizing immediately what it meant. She told me that she had read the Bible cover to cover a dozen times and had never ‘seen’ that passage before.

Of course she HAD read it before but it had never entered her consciousness because it ‘did not compute’. She had seen the words but they didn’t jive with what she already knew (for certain) to be the truth, so her mind rejected what her eyes told her and she didn’t even notice the actual text.

Anyway, I think my point is that when somebody has so much of their identity tied up in a doctrinal concept, they can be blinded to the evidence in front of them. It also appears to me that when that doctrinal belief is that they are led personally by the Holy Spirit to correctly understand the doctrinal teachings in Scripture, the blindness only increases.

Nicea, I would be interested to know if you have ever experienced anything like this in your various discussions, and if you have any other theories as to how people can seemingly fail to see obvious facts. BTW, an obvious example would be the failure to recognize the results of SS.

God Bless You Nicea, Topper

Oh yes…I have had many several experiences such as yours, especialy with SS Chritians (mainly fundamentalist). As for possible theories as to why people cannot “see” the obvious?

Well unfortunately, not every person has a B.A. in History or Masters as I do. Many do not understand or comprehend the different types of historical sources (primary,secondary,manuscripts,stallae,witness reports,archaeological,etc,etc). Primary and secondary of course being the two main sources.

The arising issue many present to me is the fact,the evidence they try to present to rebuke the CC position on the Primacy of Rome usually stems from a second hand source, NOT a primary source. I’ll tell them:

*Your source was written in 1995 AD, not 300 AD. *

Furthermore, when one reads the secondary source at times the author does not present or cite the source to support his/her argument. Or the author is disingenious with a primary source.

The other side is historical research. There are six steps involved with historical research. The first three: define the starting date, locate independent verification of basic background information and investigate the author. These steps are crucial and necessary to confirm the evidence used is factual, reporting on by multiple sources and the bias of the author.

The next three steps: analyze the information, validate against other sources and measure the creditability of the information. These steps require the use of multiple sources and a process of questioning all aspects of the information. This includes using generally accepted knowledge about the time period in question, historical facts and physical evidence.

The process of historical research requires a significant amount of reading, translating, researching and discussion. The volume of information required to support a historical theory is quite substantial. This method is often used by professionals with an extensive background in a specific subject.

 

[spina1953]

Oh yes…I have had many several experiences such as yours, especialy with SS Chritians (mainly fundamentalist). As for possible theories as to why people cannot “see” the obvious?

Well unfortunately, not every person has a B.A. in History or Masters as I do. Many do not understand or comprehend the different types of historical sources (primary,secondary,manuscripts,stallae,witness reports,archaeological,etc,etc). Primary and secondary of course being the two main sources.

The arising issue many present to me is the fact,the evidence they try to present to rebuke the CC position on the Primacy of Rome usually stems from a second hand source, NOT a primary source. I’ll tell them:

*Your source was written in 1995 AD, not 300 AD. *

Furthermore, when one reads the secondary source at times the author does not present or cite the source to support his/her argument. Or the author is disingenious with a primary source.

The other side is historical research. There are six steps involved with historical research. The first three: define the starting date, locate independent verification of basic background information and investigate the author. These steps are crucial and necessary to confirm the evidence used is factual, reporting on by multiple sources and the bias of the author.

The next three steps: analyze the information, validate against other sources and measure the creditability of the information. These steps require the use of multiple sources and a process of questioning all aspects of the information. This includes using generally accepted knowledge about the time period in question, historical facts and physical evidence.

The process of historical research requires a significant amount of reading, translating, researching and discussion. The volume of information required to support a historical theory is quite substantial. This method is often used by professionals with an extensive background in a specific subject.

Hi Nicea 325: Great post! it seems to me that while most of us may know history but not have a degree in it, many are not understanding the process you have put forth. One thing I would like to point out is that there are a great many historians who are bias toward the facts the research because they have their own agenda they want to promote. The lay person in reading any history needs to understand that and discern whether or not if bias is present and what the historian is wanting to or reason as to why a historian is arguing for his idea or interpretation of whatever historical facts he or she is using. I think all of this has to be taken into play in understanding the position a historian takes in presenting his or her understanding of the position they are taking.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Hi Syro,
I think you are absolutely right, ISTM, because our confessions are clear when it cites Nicea, saying:

VI. The Council of Nice resolved that the bishop of Alexandria should administer the churches in the East, and the Roman bishop the suburban, i.e., those which were in the Roman provinces in the West. From this start by a human law, i.e. the resolution of the Council, the authority of the Roman bishop first arose. If the Roman bishop already had the superiority by divine law, it would not have been lawful for the Council to take any right from him and transfer it to the bishop of Alexandria; nay, all the bishops of the East ought perpetually to have sought ordination and confirmation from the bishop of Rome.
Jon

Jon, it seems the bolded part is commentary on Nicaea’s resolution. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome as ‘Reesh Patriarch’ (as the Syriac Churches say) doesn’t deny the Primacy of each Patriarchate over the Patriarchal Territory. The Council did not transfer churches from Rome to Alexandria, but insisted that for local disputes and conflicts, ordinations and blessing of Holy Myron, all authority rests with Alexandria for the region. (Antioch for that region, etc). It seems to me, the Council, with Rome’s approval, is attempting to prevent someone’s appealing for Roman intervention for regional matters, for good order.

This is clearly seen when read together with the previous Canons promulgated:

Canon 4

It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.

Canon 5

Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.

Canon 6

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea 325: Great post! it seems to me that while most of us may know history but not have a degree in it, many are not understanding the process you have put forth. One thing I would like to point out is that there are a great many historians who are bias toward the facts the research because they have their own agenda they want to promote. The lay person in reading any history needs to understand that and discern whether or not if bias is present and what the historian is wanting to or reason as to why a historian is arguing for his idea or interpretation of whatever historical facts he or she is using. I think all of this has to be taken into play in understanding the position a historian takes in presenting his or her understanding of the position they are taking.

Thank you!

Indeed! Precisely why I stated, one of the steps involves the bias of the author.

 

[SyCarl]

So by calling by a council proves he did not defer to the authority of the CC? You are merely isolating one incident as some sort of evidence against the authority of the CC. Do you have Cyprian’s own words were he rejected such authority?

The topic of your post was not whether Cyprian accepted the authority of the Catholic Church but whether he accepted the authority of the Bishop of Rome. How much he may have agreed with that bishop on other matters, it only takes one example to show that he did not accept Rome’s ultimate authority.

The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian.

Concerning the Baptism of Heretics. The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics.

Prooemium.— When Stephen, Bishop of Rome, Had by His Letters Condemned the Decrees of the African Council on the Baptism of Heretics, Cyprian Lost No Time in Holding Another Council at Carthage with a Greater Number of Bishops. Having Therefore Summoned Eighty-Seven Bishops from Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania, Who Assembled at Carthage in the Kalends of September, a.d. 258, This Third Council on the Same Matter of Baptism Was Then Celebrated; At the Beginning of Which, After, the Letters on Either Side Had Been Read, Cyprian, by Implication, Condemns the Assumption of Stephen.

When, in the kalends of September, a great many bishops from the provinces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania, had met together at Carthage, together with the presbyters and deacons, and a considerable part of the congregation who were also present; and when the letter of Jubaianus written to Cyprian had been read, as also the reply of Cyprian to Jubaianus, about baptizing heretics, and what the same Jubaianus had subsequently rejoined to Cyprian,— Cyprian said: You have heard, my dearly beloved colleagues, what Jubaianus our co-bishop has written to me, taking counsel of my poor intelligence concerning the unlawful and profane baptism of heretics, as well as what I wrote in answer to him, decreeing, to wit, what we have once and again and frequently determined, that heretics who come to the Church must be baptized and sanctified by the baptism of the Church. Moreover, another letter of Jubaianus has also been read to you, wherein, replying, in accordance with his sincere and religious devotion, to my letter, he not only acquiesced in what I had said, but, confessing that he had been instructed thereby, he returned thanks for it. It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm