Heresies & the early church

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t believe there is any such right of the Pope to dismiss all Eastern bishops. To do so would violate promises made to Orthodox entering into union with Rome (for example, the Union of Brest) that such a thing would not be done.

OK, we’re both half-right. The Union of Brest does not prohibit the Pope from dismissing any (or every) Bishop, but it does impose criteria on whom he can appoint (he can’t just dismiss a Bishop and replace him with a newly-consecrated Italian mob-boss from Chicago).

Of course, a Union is like a political treaty - it is not doctrinal, but is effective as long as both sides agree to uphold it.

But, of course, this is also true of every Latin (Roman) Diocese. The Pope could depose any Latin Bishop and install another Bishop in his place (even a newly-consecrated Italian mob-boss from Chicago). But, if the deposed Bishop did not accept this authority, he could form his own schismatic Church, such as the SSPX.

 

[Usagi]

Dmar198,

While I am myself a Catholic and agree that the Pope has the authority he claims, I suspect I know how an Orthodox Christian would argue against your examples.

In each case, it could easily be said that the Pope happened to be defending the orthodox faith against heterodoxy, and the council fathers were acclaiming the truth of his teaching rather than the superior authority of his office. By that view, presumably, had the positions been reversed, the council fathers would have praised the orthodox teaching of Constantinople and condemned the heresy of Rome.

We, of course, believe that the positions could never be reversed (because the Pope is protected from teaching error to the whole Church), but the argument could still be made. Same for the famous “Peter has spoken through Leo” declaration at … Chalcedon, was it? Whether the acclamation was due to Leo’s special Petrine office or solely due to his defense of the Apostolic Faith of Peter is not easily determined.

Usagi

 

[dmar198]

Dmar198,

While I am myself a Catholic and agree that the Pope has the authority he claims, I suspect I know how an Orthodox Christian would argue against your examples.

In each case, it could easily be said that the Pope happened to be defending the orthodox faith against heterodoxy, and the council fathers were acclaiming the truth of his teaching rather than the superior authority of his office. By that view, presumably, had the positions been reversed, the council fathers would have praised the orthodox teaching of Constantinople and condemned the heresy of Rome.

We, of course, believe that the positions could never be reversed (because the Pope is protected from teaching error to the whole Church), but the argument could still be made. Same for the famous “Peter has spoken through Leo” declaration at … Chalcedon, was it? Whether the acclamation was due to Leo’s special Petrine office or solely due to his defense of the Apostolic Faith of Peter is not easily determined.

Usagi

Thank you for the constructive criticism. I agree that the Eastern Orthodox could interpret these examples in a way that weakens the case for papal authority and infallibility in the early Church. I think there are problems with non-Catholic interpretations of these events, but nevertheless I agree that we ought to supply additional evidence for papal authority beyond the examples I cited. I don’t think the OP said that his father was Eastern Orthodox, but rather Protestant, and that may make a difference.

If I presented these arguments to an Eastern Orthodox, and if he responded as you have indicated, here is how I would reply.

I would say, I think these documents imply papal authority and infallibility, but it looks like you interpret them in another way. I think there is good evidence from within the text of the Councils that my interpretation is accurate and that yours isn’t. Would you like to look at some of this evidence?

From there, I would bring up some additional passages from these councils that I think strengthen the case for papal infallibility. For example, I would cite the papal letter accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and included within its acts during Session 4. It says in part: “[The Roman see] has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself.” (Citing Luke 22:31-32) source

I would also cite Session 2 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council: “[The letter] to the Romans commend their zeal for the true faith… It is necessary to follow out this witness, and he that would contradict it is without good sense. Wherefore Hadrian, the ruler of Old Rome, since he was a sharer of these things, thus borne witness to, wrote [to the emperor]…confirming admirably and beautifully the ancient tradition of the Catholic Church… And the holy Synod said: The whole holy Synod thus teaches.” source

Regarding papal authority, I would highlight the deposition of Nestorius of Constantinople and Dioscorus of Alexandria as proof that the pope had authority over the other patriarchal sees. Since I think the evidence suggests that these depositions were accepted and applauded by the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils, I would use that as evidence that the pope’s universal jurisdiction was accepted by the universal Church. Moreover, I would cite that the Third Ecumenical Council left it up the pope as to whether or not to punish the Patriarch of Antioch: “we determined to inflict according to law the same penalty upon him * and those who were with him… But although most justly and in accordance with law he would have suffered this punishment, yet in the hope that by our patience his temerity might be conquered, we have reserved this to the decision of your holiness.” source

I would also cite some of the language used to refer to the pope by the ecumenical councils that I think prove his supreme authority. For example, the Fourth Council calls the pope “Archbishop of all the churches” (source). The Third Council says that its decree against Nestorius was “compelled…by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, the Roman bishop.” source

I hope that helps you see how I would address this issue with an Orthodox person. If you’d like more info, I encourage you to look at the articles:

Universal Papal Jurisdiction in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/universal-papal-jurisdiction-in-first.html

and

Papal Infallibility in the First Seven Ecumenical Councils
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/papal-infallibility-in-first-seven.html

God bless!*

 

[Hugh_E]

I am not really sure that it is necessary to hash out the east vs west debate here. My brother is more of a non-denominational American Christian. He probably was asking about this because we have had conversations about the importance of Apostolic authority vs sola scriptura.

I suspect he was going to make the point that if we dismiss the authority of other Apostolic Sees, then perhaps the See of Peter is not so authoritative after all.

However, is we still give deference to the authority of these sees, it supports the importance of Apostolic authority.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think I figured out the source of my mistake: I mixed Eutyches up with Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria, who was deposed by Pope Leo. The Fourth Ecumenical Council made a big point out of the fact that Pope Leo deposed Dioscorus, by the way, which is another indication that the early Church accepted the right of the pope to depose heretics.

I disagree. What can be gleaned from reading the acts in their entirety is that though the pope had already declared Dioscoros to be cut off, the senate in the first session insisted that it would be necessary to bring charges against Dioscoros in order to prevent him from sitting in the assembly. That he also had honorifics appended to his name at that point in the acts also indicates that the council did not regard him either as excommunicated or deposed, regardless of Pope Leo’s opinion or the demands of his legates.

Ultimately what happened happened was that charges were brought against Dioscoros with Eusebius of Dorylaeum acting as the chief plantiff. Dioscoros failed to appear to defend himself after receiving the threefold summons required by canon law, and thus he was deposed.

 

[dmar198]

I disagree. What can be gleaned from reading the acts in their entirety is that though the pope had already declared Dioscoros to be cut off, the senate in the first session insisted that it would be necessary to bring charges against Dioscoros in order to prevent him from sitting in the assembly. That he also had honorifics appended to his name at that point in the acts also indicates that the council did not regard him either as excommunicated or deposed, regardless of Pope Leo’s opinion or the demands of his legates.

Ultimately what happened happened was that charges were brought against Dioscoros with Eusebius of Dorylaeum acting as the chief plantiff. Dioscoros failed to appear to defend himself after receiving the threefold summons required by canon law, and thus he was deposed.

Thank you for your amicable and intelligent disagreement, Cavaradossi. I would like to answer this post in more detail, but I think we should respect the OP, who recently requested that we not hash out East/West differences in this thread. Would you like to start a new one on the topic of Dioscorus’ deposition?