Let's talk about primacy of honour

[marlo]

Then who is the first supreme infallible pontiff? can you post a straight answer?

Acts 15.
We love St Peter–but he was not the first supreme infallible pontiff.

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, **for James was invested with the chief rule, **and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
**St John Chrysostom,**Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

First, Second, Third, fourth, and fifth, does not denotes jurisdiction of one See over the other. it is just as it reads “In Honor” and Honor is not jurisdiction, here, I would point out again the canon law, where it speaks, where every See has jurisdiction over.

I agree with you insofar as the relation of EVERY patriarchate to all other patriarchates. But only the First See has the presidency of the entire Church, an “honor” (the word you would probably prefer) or “prerogative” (the word I would prefer) that does not belong to any other patriarchal See.

As for history, we can both go on endlessly, bringing forth some historical events in order to proove eash’s claim, and at the end of the night ( in this case it would be at the end of the month or so ) we both going to find ourselves before the Canon law, in the Canon law you will not find anything more then " primacy of honor" and nothing about the supremacy of the Pope or jurisdiction accorded to the Pope over all the other Sees.

Ancient CANON law of the Ecumenical Councils grants the First and presidential see of Rome the right to hear episcopal appeals from ALL other sees in Christendom . No other See has been granted this canonical right (Constantinople was granted a similar right, but only in relation Eastern Sees, not ALL the Sees). As the presidential See (i.e., possesed by the head bishop of the bishops of every nation - apostolic Canon 34), the Bishop of Rome has also been granted the ancient canonical prerogative whereby on a matter that involves the entire Church, his agreement is indispensable - i.e., the rest of the Church cannot do anything without his agreement. True enough, neither can this head bishop act without the agreement of the rest of his brother bishops. However, within that body/brotherhood of bishops, it is not Bishop A singularly or Bishop B singularly or Bishop C singularly, etc., whose agreement is regarded as indispensable, but rather only the head bishop’s.

These are the canons of the ancient Church, not something the Latins made up.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

True enough, neither can this head bishop act without the agreement of the rest of his brother bishops.

I think the Vatican would disagree with you. If agreement with the rest of (or even a majority of the rest of) other bishops was necessary, a great many promulgations of requirements of faith wouldn’t have been possible. The Vatican would have had to call a council with the Orthodox prominently invited and able to vote.

As a practical matter, it seems the Vatican’s interpretation is that the bishop of Rome, and only the bishop of Rome, can unilaterally make statements binding on all Christians everywhere. [Insert rhetoric about any such promulgation having to fit with the historical teachings of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium here. Since the Vatican also claims the sole right to interpret that “fit,” I think it’s pointless, but insert the required rhetoric anyway.]

 

[Volodymyr_988]

.

As a practical matter, it seems the Vatican’s interpretation is that the bishop of Rome, and only the bishop of Rome, can unilaterally make statements binding on all Christians everywhere.

Any student of history will tell you that only after decades and decades of petitions from the episcopate, clergy, and laity did the Popes make their “unilateral” statments of Dogma.

“Shine on, you Crazy Diamond.”

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Any student of history will tell you that only after decades and decades of petitions from the episcopate, clergy, and laity did the Popes make their “unilateral” statments of Dogma.

Orthodox episcopate, clergy, and laity? Medoubts it. Which is the whole point. The Vatican does not feel it needs agreement from or consultation with Orthodox bishops to move ahead with supposedly universally binding claims.

Besides, it’s students of rhetoric that will say such a thing, because it sounds convincing. Students of history will note that the bishops of Rome get lots of petitions. Their popularity is no predictor of the Pope’s pronouncements (sorry, I’m in an alliterative mood today). I’m guessing part of the reason JPII lived so long was that he must have spent at least fifteen minutes a day laughing gaily at the nutty things people wanted him to do or say that particular week.

 

[JJR1453]

The Interpretation of the Orthodox as well as the RCC revolve around the understanding of the word “pre-eminent” and Not the " first in honor" since RCC rejects that ONLY first in honor be accorded to the See of Rome.

As far as being second( the New Rome that is) it is clear the reason why it is the second after the Old Rome in the Canon law.

First, Second, Third, fourth, and fifth, does not denotes jurisdiction of one See over the other. it is just as it reads “In Honor” and Honor is not jurisdiction, here, I would point out again the canon law, where it speaks, where every See has jurisdiction over.

As for “…why the primacy of honor was not passed to Moscow…” because that would be done only under an Ecumenical Council resolution, and since Rome is not in communion with the rest of the Apostolic Sees, there can’t be a truly Ecumenical Council, Since for a truly Ecumenical Council to be, ALL the pentarchy must accept such Council as authoritative and binding, otherwise, if one rejects it, how could it be Ecumenical?

You bring up a good point; and it speaks more to the fact of the Eastern churches being out of communion with their head. For instance, who would confirm said council? Consensus? Consensus has always been a main theme in the councils, however, councils have always had their president as well. Such is the case when the Emperor Marcian writes to St. Leo to not withhold his confirmation for too long, for the churches were becoming weary, and after this was accomplished, his written confirmation shall be sent to the churches for publication.

Also, – and not to sound too uncharitable – Constantinople is not an Apostolic see in its proper sense. The legend of the Apostle Andrew is just that, a legend. However, Ephesus did eventually transfer under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, and of course St. John was at Ephesus.

As for history, we can both go on endlessly, bringing forth some historical events in order to proove eash’s claim, and at the end of the night ( in this case it would be at the end of the month or so ) we both going to find ourselves before the Canon law, in the Canon law you will not find anything more then " primacy of honor" and nothing about the supremacy of the Pope or jurisdiction accorded to the Pope over all the other Sees.

GOD bless you †††

St. Damasus says it well in the late 4th Century(382 I believe) when he states that the Apostolic see has not received its presidency from the canons of the church, or by the church itself, but by the divine rule of our Lord. Anyhow, you also wont find all the Sacraments in the canons of the Ecumenical councils, but this doesnt warrant a reason for doubt.

God bless,

JJR

 

[mark_a]

If the Orthodox and the Anglicans acknowledge that the Pope has primacy of honour, why don’t they acknowledge that they ought to honour his teachings?

Primacy of honor??!?!?!?!?

Please.

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Ignatios,

I agree with you insofar as the relation of EVERY patriarchate to all other patriarchates. But only the First See has the presidency of the entire Church…

Mardukm, Blessings and greetings to you as well brother. and good to hear from you again.

Well, Brother, what can gives your statement in the blue above some weight in order to be a valid ( as the RCC sees it that is) is a support from the Canon, in which it doesnt exist.

...an "honor" (the word you would probably prefer) or "prerogative" (the word I would prefer) that does not belong to any other patriarchal See.

There is a lot to be said about the above, but for now I will keep it constricted, and I will reveal things as needed, However, and to keep it short, the word “honor” does not mean that he has Jurisdiction over the whole Church.
If you like to use the word “prerogative” that is fine and well, so long it doesnt be translated into a jurisdiction, but yes he has the prerogative as to be the First to vote and the first to be asked for his advice or opinion … , but not jurisdiction.

Ancient CANON law of the Ecumenical Councils grants the First and presidential see of Rome the right to hear episcopal appeals from ALL other sees in Christendom .

True, BUT ONLY, when he is “asked” to do so. IAW, If he wished to interfere without a request, then he would be oversteping his boundries. as we see the case was in the African Church and then in the Photian Schism etc…

However there is another side to that Canon that you have mentioned and as I remember that there is a dispute over the appealing to the Bishop of Rome or the neighbouring bishop ( do not remember exactly but I will look it up if need to).

As for the Ancient Canon, this did not exist, but what is there is the following and I will give one only so we do not exhost the words here:

Ancient Epitome of Canon VI.
Sixth(6) canon of the first Ecumenical council: The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them… ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.viii.html

 No other See has been granted this canonical right (Constantinople was granted a similar right, but only in relation Eastern Sees, not ALL the Sees).

Constantinople was granted the same right:
the 28th Canon of the Fourth E.C.

“… , and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her…” Now second after her(Rome that is) does not signifies an inferior grade of dignity. Otherwise how could it be “EQUAL”? as we see in the above.

  As the presidential See (i.e., possesed by the head bishop of the bishops of every nation - apostolic Canon 34),

I beleive you have made a mistake on the Canon# in the above, If I am the one who is mistaking, then I appologize, and I would ask you to post the Canon, because I certainly did not see anything that it relates to what we are talking about in the 34th C. of the Apostles.
However, if you read the next Canon 35 and 36 you will find that those 2 canons actually refute your claim, lets take a look:

1. The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit.
   The above is the discription of the Patriarch, NOT the Pope, everyone knows this, Mardukm, and I think you should to? otherwise you are minimizing the role of the Pope as it is understood by the RCC:
   "882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403 ( from the CCC)
   Now, could what have been listed in the Apostolic Canon #35 be the discription of the Bishop of Rome as defined by the same?Obviously not.
   Now lets look at the following Canon:
2. A bishop must not venture to ordain out of his own bounds for cities or countries that are not subject to him. But if he be convicted of having done so without the consent of such as governed those cities or countries, let him be deprived, both the bishop himself and those whom he has ordained.

Well, the above one it surely puts this claim to rest, Therfore I rest my case on this one.

the Bishop of Rome has also been granted the ancient canonical prerogative whereby on a matter that involves the entire Church, his agreement is indispensable - i.e., the rest of the Church cannot do anything without his agreement.

Any Canons regarding this claim, would be greatly appreciated.
But there is None.

Continue…

 

[Ignatios]

True enough, neither can this head bishop act without the agreement of the rest of his brother bishops.  However, within that body/brotherhood of bishops, it is not Bishop A singularly or Bishop B singularly or Bishop C singularly, etc., whose agreement is regarded as indispensable, but rather only the head bishop's.

BUT he still cant act without them and he holds no more voting power then the rest of them.

Marduk, before all, IN YOUR opinion and according to your knowledge, does the above discribe better the Bishop of Rome or the Eastern bishops.( Patriarchs)?

These are the canons of the ancient Church, not something the Latins made up.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, then why is the RCC violate this canon? or the least to say that they do not follow it any more.
BUT what is more important, could you tell us when they (The RCC) stoped following this canon, since it is clear as the sun, that this Canon is discribing the Patriarchs and not the Pope of Rome.
thank you and blessings, In CHRIST †††

 

[Ignatios]

You bring up a good point; and it speaks more to the fact of the Eastern churches being out of communion with their head. For instance, who would confirm said council? Consensus? Consensus has always been a main theme in the councils, however, councils have always had their president as well. Such is the case when the Emperor Marcian writes to St. Leo to not withhold his confirmation for too long, for the churches were becoming weary, and after this was accomplished, his written confirmation shall be sent to the churches for publication.

Okay I will answer very quickly, it is your lucky night .

First let me make it clear that the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD is never out of communion with her HEAD Since the HEAD of the Church is CHRIST ALONE as saint Paul said.
in regard to the presidency, if you mean that the Pope was the president of all the Councils, then how come he was NOT aware of the first 2 Ecumenical Councils and he was not even invited to either one of them, Not to mention also, that at the same council that you mentioned above Pope Leo pleaded with groan and tears to have the Council in Rome (because he was afraid of the outcome of that council that Pope Discorous would manage to turn things around on him) but it wasnt as he wished, and before that he also tried so hard to not to have the Council but again not to his likening.

As for conformations and Consensus, that what is required from all the pentarchies ( all the Patriarchates that is) in oreder for a Council to be Ecumenical ( Universaly binding on all the Churches) I suggest reading more about this. By the way, how many of those Councils the Pope called, and how many of them he presided over? I suggest to read from all sides not only the Newadvent.

Also, -- and not to sound too uncharitable -- Constantinople is not an *Apostolic see* in its proper sense. The legend of the Apostle Andrew is just that, a legend. However, Ephesus did eventually transfer under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, and of course St. John was at Ephesus.

that is not what the Church of Rome say about this, so if you are trying to infuse doubt concerning this, then you are to deffend your claim as St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and he indeed set on that throne and it was he and not St. Paul who established the Church of Rome, However I will be charitable and not go into this with you.Just to give you a couple of thoughts.

St. Damasus says it well in the late 4th Century(382 I believe) when he states that the Apostolic see has not received its presidency from the canons of the church, or by the church itself, but by the divine rule of our Lord. Anyhow, you also wont find all the Sacraments in the canons of the Ecumenical councils, but this doesnt warrant a reason for doubt.

God bless,

JJR

We know what pope Damasus said, however his words are not Canons are they? if yes please by all means show us where or post those canons for us,
Canons are to tell you mainly what is and what is not in the Church discpline, it tells you which Bishop is the Primate of the Church you belong to. Canons are not about teaching theology or are the place where you can look up the sacrements, however we can find find some canons from the Apostles that teaches about baptism ( by the way your Church does not follow them regratefully any more), allow me to incourge you on reading the Apostolic Canons, and then you shall see that you cannot recognize your church from those canons anymore, but you have a hope in your new pope I think he is trying to bring you back somewhat to that.

GOD bless you as well †††

 

[Rkman]

If the Orthodox and the Anglicans acknowledge that the Pope has primacy of honour, why don’t they acknowledge that they ought to honour his teachings?

Orthodox would only acknowledge Pope’s primacy of honour if he was Orthodox in communion with other Orthodox churches. Since he is not, it is pointless to discuss primacy of honour from Orthodox perspective.

 

[JohnVIII]

Ancient CANON law of the Ecumenical Councils grants the First and presidential see of Rome the right to hear episcopal appeals from ALL other sees in Christendom . No other See has been granted this canonical right (Constantinople was granted a similar right, but only in relation Eastern Sees, not ALL the Sees). As the presidential See (i.e., possesed by the head bishop of the bishops of every nation - apostolic Canon 34), the Bishop of Rome has also been granted the ancient canonical prerogative whereby on a matter that involves the entire Church, his agreement is indispensable - i.e., the rest of the Church cannot do anything without his agreement. True enough, neither can this head bishop act without the agreement of the rest of his brother bishops. However, within that body/brotherhood of bishops, it is not Bishop A singularly or Bishop B singularly or Bishop C singularly, etc., whose agreement is regarded as indispensable, but rather only the head bishop’s.

These are the canons of the ancient Church, not something the Latins made up.

Blessings,
Marduk

The perspective that you should consider is that these powers granted to the chief patriarch of the Church are only powers that may be exercised within an ecumenical council.

 

[JohnVIII]

St. Damasus says it well in the late 4th Century(382 I believe) when he states that the Apostolic see has not received its presidency from the canons of the church, or by the church itself, but by the divine rule of our Lord. Anyhow, you also wont find all the Sacraments in the canons of the Ecumenical councils, but this doesnt warrant a reason for doubt.

God bless,

JJR

If you or anyone else out there can tell me where to read this reference to St. Damasus I would greatly appreciate it. It is my understanding that the Church does have the power to choose “its presidency”.

 

[JohnVIII]

May I butt in and reply? …

BUT he still cant act without them and he holds no more voting power then the rest of them.

He can’t act without a plurality of the rest of the patriarchies. As far as voting goes he has 2 votes, not just 1; yet he still may overrule them all, when in council, if he so chooses.

Marduk, before all, IN YOUR opinion and according to your knowledge, does the above discribe better the Bishop of Rome or the Eastern bishops.( Patriarchs)?

Marduk, then why is the RCC violate this canon? or the least to say that they do not follow it any more.
BUT what is more important, could you tell us when they (The RCC) stoped following this canon, since it is clear as the sun, that this Canon is discribing the Patriarchs and not the Pope of Rome.

The customs that rule a local synod are the same customs used during an ecumenical council.

 

[JJR1453]

Okay I will answer very quickly, it is your lucky night .

First let me make it clear that the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD is never out of communion with her HEAD Since the HEAD of the Church is CHRIST ALONE as saint Paul said.
in regard to the presidency, if you mean that the Pope was the president of all the Councils, then how come he was NOT aware of the first 2 Ecumenical Councils and he was not even invited to either one of them, Not to mention also, that at the same council that you mentioned above Pope Leo pleaded with groan and tears to have the Council in Rome (because he was afraid of the outcome of that council that Pope Discorous would manage to turn things around on him) but it wasnt as he wished, and before that he also tried so hard to not to have the Council but again not to his likening.

Hello Ignatios,

I would encourage you to take upon the sometime hard task – as it is something I assume we all wrestle with – of examining the historical record with an objective mind. You are correct in that St. Leo did want the council to be held in the West, precisely because he knew if the council was to be held in the East, then western bishops would not be able to attend in any abundance, as at this time Attila and his raiding Huns were a dangerous threat. Rightfully so, Leo was weary of the Greek bishops and their orthodoxy. His want of the council in the West was directly infulenced by his zeal for an orthodox council. You are aware that Dioscorus was a heretic? Im not sure why you have pointed out that Leo was weary of Dioscorus? He was after all a heretic; an active one at that. Leo tried to halt the council when he writes to Marcian in June of 451, however Marican had already sent word approx. one month earlier in May for the calling of the council. For more insight, I would suggest reading Hefele. The Pope doesnt have to be the acting president, he just has to confirm the council. Perhaps you would like to bring up any of the 7 councils we both hold to be Ecumencial, and provide exmaples on how you believe this action of the Pope to be contrary to the historical record? I would be glad to respond.

As for conformations and Consensus, that what is required from all the pentarchies ( all the Patriarchates that is) in oreder for a Council to be Ecumenical ( Universaly binding on all the Churches) I suggest reading more about this. By the way, how many of those Councils the Pope called, and how many of them he presided over? I suggest to read from all sides not only the Newadvent.

If I have understood your logic correctly, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You first posit – rightly so – that certain councils the Pope(his legates) didnt even attend(Constantinople I & II), but then you go on to state that all the patriarchs of the pentarchy must confirm and agree?
I appreciate your concern, and I do try and read as much as I can. The New Advent site has its fair share of helpful knowledge, although you might be surprised to know, I have read from sources other than that of New Advent before.

that is not what the Church of Rome say about this, so if you are trying to infuse doubt concerning this, then you are to deffend your claim as St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and he indeed set on that throne and it was he and not St. Paul who established the Church of Rome, However I will be charitable and not go into this with you.Just to give you a couple of thoughts.

If you are trying to create a parallel here of the authenticity of the tradition of St. Peter at Rome, with that of the legend of St. Andrew at Constantinople, then I certainly would encourage you to read more into the issue. If you would like to carry on the discussion after maybe delving into the topic a bit more, then I would be happy to participate.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

If you or anyone else out there can tell me where to read this reference to St. Damasus I would greatly appreciate it. It is my understanding that the Church does have the power to choose “its presidency”.

Its found in the: ‘Decree of Damasus’, from a council in Rome in 382 where he also acknowledges the Holy Scriptures, 46 in the OT, and 27 in the NT.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Ignatios]

Hello Ignatios,

I would encourage you to take upon the sometime hard task – as it is something I assume we all wrestle with – of examining the historical record with an objective mind.

Greetings to you JJR,
I thank you for your encouragements, however, I wasn’t going to answer your past post, BUT, I did take sometimes the best that can to reply to you, as for the examination of the historical record, when I did examined them I did with an open mind, actually the Church History is what made me come to my father’s faith and anchor myself in the Orthodox Church, since I was seeker and studying all faiths including Islam, and yes at one time the Roman Catholicism made all the sense to me until I started reading the Church history with an open mind without any prejudice for or against any.

 You are correct in that St. Leo did want the council to be held in the West, precisely because he knew if the council was to be held in the East, then western bishops would not be able to attend in any abundance, as at this time Attila and his raiding Huns were a dangerous threat. Rightfully so, Leo was weary of the Greek bishops and their orthodoxy.His want of the council in the West was directly infulenced by his zeal for an orthodox council...

“their Orthodoxy” is what made him succeed, it is evident in what the Bishops proclaimed in that Council, and only through “their orthodoxy” did he succeed, what he was weary of is the influence of the See of the Pope Discorus at that time since they( the Alexandrians) were the leaders (If you will) in that time.
But, to stick to the subject at hand, isn’t the above a clear indication that the Pope of Rome is not what the RCC today claims, if he was then why should he be weary of the outcome of that Council, all he had to do is say the way he sees it and excommunicate whoever doesn’t follow his command or declare it a dogma on his own. also if he is the president as we see the claim is in this thread, then, all he had to do is say “there shall not be a council” or " the Council will be held in Rome", if he was the president as defined by the RCs he would have had many ways that he could have used, other then submitting to the wish of the others, If he was the president he wouldn’t have “begged” with “groan and tears” but instead he would have had issued a “bull” and the examples are many if we were to go on.

 You are aware that Dioscorus was a heretic? Im not sure why you have pointed out that Leo was weary of Dioscorus? He was after all a heretic; an active one at that.

I pointed Discorus out just as a side comments that is why I bracketed it.

Now, Technically and according to the E.C. Pope Discorus was not named as heretic nor he was condemned as such, but on the Ground that he did not show up after calling him to summon three times by most of the Bishops :
" THE CONDEMNATION SENT BY THE HOLY AND ECUMENICAL SYNOD TO DIOSCORUS.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 459.)
The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.
We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order (qesmou) by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come."

Leo tried to halt the council when he writes to Marcian in June of 451, however Marican had already sent word approx. one month earlier in May for the calling of the council.

So, according to your above, we find again another sign that the Pope of Rome is not what the RCs are seeing him to be in the history, for if he was, then Marcian wouldn’t have made the calling of the Council but the Pope would have, and for the sake of argument let us say that Marcian did indeed made the calling for the council prior to Leo’s request, The Pope of Rome still has the power according to RCC understanding of his position, to reverse it, not to mention that one might ask why was it Marcian who called for the Council if the Pope is the president, or at least why not Marcian discuss this with the Pope of Rome if he was the president? and again was this the first time that such things happens, NO, not according to the history, we see it happening in the first E.C and in the Second E.C.and all seventh E.C. it was not once that the Pope of Rome who called for an Ecumenical Council, it was not in all of them that the Pope of Rome presided over all of them by person or by legates.

 

[Ignatios]

For more insight, I would suggest reading Hefele. The Pope doesn’t have to be the acting president, he just has to confirm the council. Perhaps you would like to bring up any of the 7 councils we both hold to be Ecumenical, and provide examples on how you believe this action of the Pope to be contrary to the historical record? I would be glad to respond.

I believe that Hefele is a pious RC So, One must take into considerations his background, However many of his approaches are Understandable knowing his background.
True the Pope doesn’t have to be the acting president when he is called to be so, he could do that through a legates, or even without being present, any of the Pentarchies Sees, all they have to do is to accept the Council and ratify it, and then if all did so, it becomes an ECUMENICAL, in which its resolution would be binding on all the Church, So if the Pope of Rome or any Patriarch did not ratify it, then it wont be an Ecumenical, unless the Bishop of a Church was a subject to something such as the case of Discorus, but even then others were appointed for the Patriarchate of Alexandria.

If I have understood your logic correctly, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You first posit – rightly so – that certain councils the Pope(his legates) didn’t even attend(Constantinople I & II), but then you go on to state that all the patriarchs of the pentarchy must confirm and agree?

let me try to clarify it,
But allow me first to make some corrections to your history with meekness, “ Constantinople II” was not until the year 553 A.D. and it was Eutychius of Constantinople, who presided in that Council.
And in the first Council( Nicea I) there were a legates from the See of Rome, the pope of Rome sent 2 or 3 legates when he heard that the Emperor convoked that Council ( in which the Emperor did not invite him nor notify him about it neither any of the Eastern Bishops)
In the case of the 2nd E.C. all of its attendees were from the East.
Now, Nicea I(325 A.D.) and Constantinople I ( 381 A.D.) characteristically were not Ecumenical Councils, it wasn’t until later those 2 councils became Ecumenical in character. (in particular the second E.C.) Why? For I have explained few times I believe so far and that is, it takes all Five Pentarchies to make a Council an Ecumenical one, so in the above case those councils were involved the Eastern Churches but not the See of Rome in the beginning, and when later Councils came to be, Rome being present at those later Councils, submitted to them ( the first two that is) and thus they became Ecumenical since now their resolutions were accepted by all Five Pentarchies (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople) I listed them not by Honor but according to the oldest first.
So I hope that I clarified this one enough for you.

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

I appreciate your concern, and I do try and read as much as I can. The New Advent site has its fair share of helpful knowledge, although you might be surprised to know, I have read from sources other than that of New Advent before.

OOO don’t get me wrong the newadvent is fine except that they reword some of the historical sentences in a way that would not make their claims obviously in contradiction with what one Church Father said, I have noticed that very heavily in the case of certain sentences of St. Gregory the Theologian for example it was so bad that I couldn’t use them for quote, my reference to those sentences were books that some of them were even written or translated by non-Orthodox.

If you are trying to create a parallel here of the authenticity of the tradition of St. Peter at Rome, with that of the legend of St. Andrew at Constantinople, then I certainly would encourage you to read more into the issue. If you would like to carry on the discussion after maybe delving into the topic a bit more, then I would be happy to participate.

I am not trying to create anything, I just responded to what you were trying to create, and since I know quite a bit about the legend of the “legend of St. Andrew” ( although this is not what your Church believe concerning this ) thus I am aware of how the theory goes, and the reasoning used, however I did give you an Idea that the reasoning that you are trying to use to discredit the Holy see of Constantinople, the same would be used in the case of saint Peter in relation to the Roman See.
However, we as Orthodox believe that St. Peter was indeed in Rome and he preached there etc…there is no absolute proof, except some quoting, But if the Orthodox Church believe he was there, then this is good enough for me, I will stick to it, BUT as for he was the First bishop of Rome this is a long shot ( as you say in America).
I appreciate your encouragements, GOD bless you †, but I have done a lots of research in those areas, however extra info. Doesn’t hurt, what do you suggest? Maybe I have overlooked some info, if you can contribute, I would be greatly thankful since I am always open to more info.
But let me invite you in return into reading more about this issue from both sides again.
I do not mind going into any historical discussions actually I like to discuss the history side of the Church, I am not too much into discussing the Theology ( but few times I got dragged into it) especially when it comes to speaking about the Lord Holy Spirit, for such things, as St Gregory the Theologian said in his first theological Oration ( oration 27) third chapter “… Discussion of Theology is not for everyone, I tell you, not for everyone, it is no much inexpensive or effortless pursuit. Nor, I would add, is it for every occasion, or every audience, neither are all its aspects open to inquiry, it must be reserved for certain occasion, for certain audiences and certain limits must be observed. It is not for all people…etc”
However we must observe the title of this thread, but if you like maybe later you can open up a thread for that discussion.
GOD bless you abundantly†††

 

[Ignatios]

May I butt in and reply? …

He can’t act without a plurality of the rest of the patriarchies. As far as voting goes he has 2 votes, not just 1; yet he still may overrule them all, when in council, if he so chooses.

That is what i said I beleive, that he can’t act without the Bishops of that See.
To be honest with you this the first time I hear of this, that he has 2 votes, ( check the recent voting 2004 in the Antiochian Patriarchate in Damascus concerning the American archdiocese, it says that each would have one vote, it didnt say anything about the Patriarch having two votes) But I must confess, that My knowledge in this area is not complete, I may be wrong, do you have anything that I might read further concerning this ( the two votes for the Patriacrh that is).

Again I do not think that this is a clear cut as you are saying it, simply because the Synods are the highest authority in the Church, we have seen the opposite done, that the synods deposed of a Patriarch dispite his ruling or insistence on a matter, I know that if he doesn’t convoke the synod then they can’t get together to acheive a resolution, BUT in this case the Ecumenical Patriarch would call for a pan Orthodox council and they depose of him in such a case, as was done to the Patriarch of Jerusalem a few years ago.

The customs that rule a local synod are the same customs used during an ecumenical council.

True very close but not explicitly so. becuase the one who preside in the Ecumenical council cannot depose of one bishop or Patriarch, it is done through the Council and not through one person as you have explained in your above, besides at the time of the seven E.C. there was the Emepror who played a major role too at times and in the case of St Constantine the Great he made strict rules that all the Bishop’s ruling must be an extract from the Holy Scriptures, thus the Scriptures since then was placed on a special throne in all the following Councils.

Besides I do not see the relation of your reply to what I have posted, are you sure you didnt hit the wrong botton?

GOD bless you Brother and CHRIST is in our midst †††