Let's talk about primacy of honour

[JJR1453]

Are you trying to apply some of your logic to an E.C. that happened in the first millennium?
My friend, we can only use what had been written, many things in that time it makes the heads of modern scholars smoke, never mind your head and mine, you must understand that things were not clear cut as we wished them to be and in many cases there many records had been lost, not to mention to you to keep in mind the differences in thinking both for that time and for that society also in languages.
Here is some work from some respectful site the “ccel”:
Concerning Ecumenical Councils in General.
AN Ecumenical Synod may be defined as a synod the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world. It is not necessary to make a council ecumenical that the number of bishops present should be large, there were but 325 at Nice, and 150 at I. Constantinople; it is not necessary that it should be assembled with the intention of its being ecumenical, such was not the case with I. Constantinople; it is not necessary that all parts of the world should have been represented or even that the bishops of such parts should have been invited. All that is necessary is that its decrees find ecumenical acceptance afterwards, and its ecumenical character be universally recognized…
… The Seven Ecumenical Councils were all called together at the commandment and will of Princes; without any knowledge of the matter on the part of the Pope in one case at least (1st Constantinople); without any consultation with him in the case of I. Nice, so far as we know; and contrary to his expressed desire in at least the case of Chalcedon, when he only gave a reluctant consent after the Emperor Marcian had already convoked the synod. From this it is historically evident that Ecumenical Councils can be summoned without either the knowledge or consent of the See of Rome.

Please make my life easier and do some study and research on that, then talk to me and I will tell you where to find the best deal for a headache pills.

continue…

What first is noticable about the site you have provided – and I do also use the CCEL site at times – is that it is in error in regards to Nicea I. There were** 318 **fathers assembled at Nicea and it was convoked in the year 325, perhaps this was the reason for its confusion.
In the case of Constantinople I, it was of course not Ecumenical, and only became so at the Council of Chalcedon. Speaking of Cahlcedon, Marcian himself called for the council only at the “favorable suggestions” of Pope Leo. In fact, shortly after Marcian was elevated to Emperor he wrote a letter to Leo notifying him of his promotion, and asked for the prayers of him who had the “oversight and the first place in the faith” (Leonis. Epist. 73)

If you would wish to downgrade any of this because it may be taken form Hefele – which any scholar would find ridiculous – you will well note the epistle can be also found in Hardouin and Mansi.

Also, Marcian writes in May for the calling of the council, while Leo wrote one month later in June to postpone the council to a later time(Because of Attila and his rading Huns). So, as far as Marcian knew, he was simply calling the synod in accordance with Leo’s suggestions. Leo even wrote later to the Emperor that he was disappointed(he didnt know Marcian had already called for the council before he wrote to him) that he had called for the council against his request, but made note that he would not oppose him out of love for peace and his fervent religious zeal(Leo had been too used to unCatholic Emperors, and was pleased with Marcian’s orthodoxy.)
Although you may wish to leave out the historical context of the day – which is very dangeorus to any historian – it will do you well in doing a bit more research, instead of just copying and pasting a quick google search.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

…Continued

I never mentioned Constantinople II, I was speaking about the First 2 E.C., and I said that in the first E.Council Rome was not even invited or notified, but when the Pope heard about it he sent a legates, the second E.Council, the same thing happened, but this time no knowledge nor presence of any Western bishops, and I spoke about this to illustrate for you that Councils did take place without either attendance from Rome or knowledge of them by Rome in which later on became Ecumenical, since the subject that we started with, was about the presidency of Rome in the E.C. and that the RCs think that all the E.C. were presided over by the Pope and that there is no E.C without the Pope, and yet those Councils (1st&2nd) became Ecumenical despite all the mentioned situations, and they did become Ecumenical because all the Patriarchates accepted them, some sooner some later.
However Second Constantinople was attended by 6 Western bishops and it was with the knowledge of Rome, but the Pope boycott it in the beginning only to submit to its resolutions soon after, since they censored him and almost condemned him( actually they did condemned him in the beginning of the council but some historical records shows that they did indirectly or without naming him) however he was excommunicated by Some Western bishops from the communion of the catholic Faith, but then he asked the Patriarch of Constantinople to be restored to the communion:
“… At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to the advice of the Council, and six months afterwards wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren…” (Fleury. Hist. Eccl., Liv. xxxiii. 52.)
SO, so far we cant find anything that would confirm the claims of the RCC concerning the presidency of their Pope other than an “honor”.

If you are familiar with Constantinople II, you will note that the big trouble with it in the West was that the West felt it was trying to compromise with the Monophysites – which was really the main aim of Justinian – and felt that it gave up Chalcedon. Also, what was an issue was that the council was trying to condemen those that had died in the Catholic communion, that were, in any case, mostly unkown in the West. The real question we must ask ourselves, pertaining directly to our discussion, is why Justinian took such great measures to get Vigilius to confirm the council. He was tortured and mistreated. In any case, the council personally asked Vigilius to preside.

I believe you misunderstood me, None of the Eastern bishops notified Rome about the Council that is! And it is NOT that the Emperor didn’t notify anyone.

Not sure which council youre speaking of here. If its Const. I, then I would agree. There is no need for them to notify Rome, it was a regional council set forth to deal with the Arian problem that was rampant in the East.

Loool …. GOD bless Hefele, he had a great zeal for his church, he never left it out of “anything” at all, he surely made sure to include his church in every “historical” work he did. The above of Hefele is another example how prejudice he was in “his” historical records and I am referring to the “ … summoned by the Emperor AND POPE SILVESTER” Even the newadvent concede to much less than that. “…I also note that the translation in the English edition of Hefele’s History of the Councils (Vol. III., p. 51) is misleading and inaccurate, “Urged by the canons, and in accordance with the letter etc” - ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xi.html

Well, you may take up a laugh if you’d like, but it would be at the expense of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, not Hefele.
What I would find humorous, is the pains at which you have taken to try and discredit Hefele, and his English translation. If this is the best you can find, then I would classify it – as many eminent scholars do – as one of the best works of the council ever produced.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

I suggest to go back and read what I have said, It is obvious that I was referring to the first two Councils that they were not Ecumenical and it is clear also that I said that they became ECUMENICAL” only after they were Ecumenically ratified.

Don’t you think you are getting into too many issues at the same time,
I suggest to carry one issue at a time until it is concluded, so you wont look like those who like to “hit and run”.

Forgive me if it sounds as if Im introducing new topics(as it is, I feel we have too many side topics as it is), it just so happens that this canon and council prove a good example for my position, while at the same time proving a good stance for the filioque as well. I do not intend to talk of the filioque, there are far too many thread to spaek of it here. Just coincedence…

However, let me give a few pointers on the above,and in which you have said it yourself that only some 20 years later was declared as Ecumenical, now, for Pentarchy, maybe it wasn’t brought up at that particular council, nevertheless the pentarchy existed and it was fact and vibrant and that is why Rome had to submit to Cons.I under the sheer orthodoxy of that council,

I dont understand what Constantinople I and the Pentarchy have to do with eachother? The Pentarchy only came about 70 years later…perhaps you can clarify?

besides there is another element that I did mention briefly to someone else and that is the Emperor, who was the “equal to the Apostles” and had ecumenical power, as for the Nicene Creed, although the fathers said according to the records “…Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa." Nevertheless, the creed was recited in full according to both sections ( If I may use this word) of it Nicea and Consta. I.

I know that Constantine viewed himself as the “13th Apostle”, but this sort of train of thought was foreign to the church, as regards doctrinal matters. You may be right that the Easterns thought of the Emperors as “Equal to the Apostles”, this would not surprise me, as the Emperors constantly wished to mutter in strictly doctrinal affairs, and they are a principle reason why such heretical beliefs festered and were so prevalent in the East.
As regards the Creed, the only universally known Creed was that published at the Council of Nicea, not with the additions made at Constantinople I, this is simple fact, as the Council of Ephesus so declares. Maybe you are unfamiliar that at the Council the Nicene Creed(published at Nicea without additions) was read aloud at the council. Was it recited elsewhere? Sure, so was the Apostles Creed, the Athanasian Creed etc…

The RCC still calls it the Nicene Creed, But do they recite only the Nicene part of it? Of course Not.
I think your comments above is overstretched.

Already noted above, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed **was not **recited at the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.

Pentarchy was not from the beginning, but instead there was three pre-eminent Churches ( Rome, Alexandria and Antioch) , this is clear in the canons of the 1st E.C. even Jerusalem was mentioned,

Yes, the 6th Canon mentions Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Jerusalem is only mentioned as having an honorary title because of the place of death of our Lord. Constantinople – as the capital – was only a year old at the time. Pentarchy status? This is the stuff of legend, or wishful thinking my friend…

Now let me explain Again, that the first Ecumenical Council was not intended to be Ecumenical in the beginning, And the Second, Again was not Ecumenical in the beginning because although all the eastern Churches were there, but NOT the Western Churches. and Again if Rome or ANY of the Major Churches are not there then how could it be Ecumenical, but that doesn’t mean that the Eastern Church did not see the Pentarchy from the time of the Second Ecumenical Council, how could they not to, if they are the ones who elevated Constantinople and Jerusalem to the pentarchy level, if you want to say that Rome didn’t see it this way, then I would have no problem with it, if** Rome OR an Ecumenical Council didn’t mention it that doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist nor would that mean that the last two were ignored as such, the only thing it would mean that they were not Ecumenically recognized as such, SO long it is not condemned by the E.C. **

And here we have(in bold) the exact argument that the Orthodox wish to cite against Catholics. So – as you assert – eventhough the Pentarchy wasnt contrived till Chalcedon in the mid 5th Century, it was always held by the church evethough the make no note of it? This really is the most humorous assertion Ive heard from you yet. The fact is, the Pentarchy is a development that occured, it has nothing of value concerning scripture, simply a design of church government, that with the conquest of Islam, has really been turned into a concept of faint memory, wherein the other great Patriarchs took their stay with the Byzantine court, and its Patriarch. In any case, you really didnt answer the question, as I can hardly see how you could, given history speaks against your position.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

…Continued

I guess you misunderstood what I said, again, My words are focused on what you are trying to create and that is “ the legend of the Apostle Andrew” and therefore I said that I am not trying to create anything, since it is you who is creating something that is irrelevant to what the discussion was about.

I don’t think you are understanding me correctly, No, but let me, explain it,
The same criterion or I prefer the word Reasoning, yes, but NOT about the preaching, IAW, it is the reasoning itself that you are using what is dangerous, why?
Because, if you apply this to the Apostle Andrew, then, the same must apply not only to St Peter but to all (t)raditions such as the dogma of the Assumption of Mary the Immaculate Conception and the other APsotles too since there is no records of the Churches that they established that it doesn’t mean that they didn’t establish any Churches, this is where your reasoning lead to, is a self destructive, and it is nothing but a theory, otherwise this would be hypocrisy, since in both cases we have nothing but tradition, If you wish to say that the case of St Peter is more elaborated and of earlier record, I have No problem with that but nevertheless, it is still a (t)radition, based on someone who heard from someone… and as for St Ignatios record there is nothing in there except for that phrase” I am not an apostle like Peter and Paul to give you commandments” but this proves nothing they gave commandments through an Epistles, and here I use the Epistles of Paul as well as Peter’s as a proof that commandements were given through an epistles also, Ireanaus and the rest, there is no testimony of first hand witness to any. The best one you “may” have an argument, is that of his own Epistle when he speaks of Babylon, but then it is not clear enough, why? to be brief,
because in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, he greeted about 28 different individuals but didn’t mention Peter!!! In the whole Epistle,
And then in acts 28:15 "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us” Nothing about Saint Peter,
Also Saint Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in the book of Acts. But he never mentioned St. Peter being in Rome or met up with St.Paul
Acts 28:17, 22-23 where he summoned all the chief of the Jews together, they knew nothing about the Gospel and they said that they only knew that everybody hate them the Christians that is. Could it be that St. Peter was there??? How could all the above be? I ask you, and St Peter was there !!! for at least 14 years by then??? And there were a clear evidence of ignorance of the Gospel,

And then in Second Timothy around the year 65ad. Paul describes the circumstances at length in this Epistle. In regard to his trial( his second trip to Rome), he said in II Timothy 4:16. “At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.” Here you have no escape, St. Peter was not there, could it be that he was there and he forsake St Paul after he was repented from denying CHRIST three time??? I ask you.

In Rome in 65 A.D. St Paul said: “Only Luke is with me” (II Tim. 4:11)

I have many many more that I can bring up concerning this case, **And I can assure you that I can at least put you in a dilemma on whether St Peter was there or not, **but I will not go further on this issue, Especially about the legend of St Peter being the first bishop in Rome as early as the year 32a.d. since there is more destructions in it than there is benefit.
I Like to assure you all, that I believe that St Peter was indeed in Rome, and the benefit of believing this maybe is not too great but it is not a dogma in the Orthodox Church, BUT he never was a bishop in Rome and defenetly not the first bishop in Rome, those are an example of what legends are, I will stop here for now, and I hope that you will too JJR and let us try to somehow observe the title of this thread.

Continue…

I too wish to put this issue aside. However, let me just leave note(in response to your bold) that it would not be so much me that you would be putting in a dilemma, but the leading scholars of all faiths, should your arguments be as powerful as you suggest:

"Nevertheless, Irenaeus’s testimony in favour of a sojourn by Peter in Rome cannot be doubted. After Irenaeus, witnesses of this sort become abundant, and no ancient author denies that Peter went to Rome. This is an important point, and to it should be added the fact that only the Roman Church claimed to have Peter’s tomb. There were no other claimants. The argument from silence here is unusually powerful. For Peter visited many cities which might conceivably have boasted that they had provided a last resting place for him, had there been any persistent tradition to that effect. The archaeological evidence for the burial of St. Peter in Rome, beneath the Vatican itself is very complex. The excavators claim that they have found the site of Peter’s tomb, but not the tomb itself. Nevertheless, there are still many sceptics, Roman and non-Roman, but most of the leading scholars of all faiths are convinced that Peter did carry the Gospel to Rome and establish a Christian community in that city.
myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_3.html

Taken from an Eastern Orthodox site.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

Like I said earlier if you are trying to say that the case of St Peter is more elaborated then I agree, if the testimony of those who spoke of it are earlier again I have no problem with that but, But it is still (t)radition.

But, I see that you have failed to mention other parts of that Orthodox site, to mention few of the same site:

At first, the Byzantine Church made no attempt to match the elaborate structure of testimony, archaeological and literary, which **had grown up **around the account of the foundation of the Roman Church by the Apostle Peter…

things were not as they were from the beginning in relation to the (t)radition of the Romans, they “grew up” as the time went, hwo could that be?

Next, they could turn to accounts of the life and activity of Andrew, which had been circulating in one form or another since the middle of the third century, if not before…

It must be admitted also that the history of the careers of all but a few of Jesus’ twelve disciples is shrouded in mystery because most of them, except for Peter and Paul, had the bad fortune to work in the remoter and less famous regions of the Empire, and partly on this account failed to attract the attention of a responsible historian who might have recorded their achievements in a manner that would command respect.
So, in the above is where one might ask, if it was not recorded then, can we say that only S.S. Peter and Paul established Churches, could it be that the other Apostles didn’t establish any Churches?, and if NOT which Churches could those be that they established?

If you desire to dismiss the theory of the “ legend of St Andrew” on the ground that there is no first hand record, then the same would naturally apply to many many other (t)raditions.

Also, your dismissal to the Constantinople claim, is not complete, since you only did so on the ground that there is no records of first hand witnesses to that claim, but also there is no first hand witnesses to prove that St Andrew was not the one who established the See of Constan., and here I would say that if we take a Map and dot every place the Apostles and along with the Disciples of Christ, that it was recorded in the Bible, it is very hard to say that they didn’t go through Byzantium( Constantinople) we also know that the Apostles went to all over the world, but do we have a record to every church, town and city they went and established, No, so in my opinion, It is equally absurd to say that he didn’t establish a church in there, since you have no record to prove that he didn’t, where in the case of St. Peter, we have biblical record that would deny Peter existence in Rome up to the time of the written record( biblical) in which it makes the RCC claim to St Peter as being the first bishop of Rome (St. Peter (32-67) Mother of all Legends, up to “the year 65/67” the Biblical record of St. Paul are undisputed, unless you are ready to dismiss the Bible as a “legend “ too.

And now lets move on to the rest:

“…bishop dorotheus at the end of the thirf century attributed that Byzantium was found by Saint Andrew”
“St. Andrew is said to have been responsible for spreading the tenets of the Christian religion though Asia Minor and Greece. Tradition suggests that St. Andrew was put to death by the Romans in Patras, Southern Greece by being pinned to a cross (crucified). The diagonal shape of this cross is said to be the basis for the Cross of St. Andrew which appears on the Scottish Flag.“
“St. Andrews bones were entombed, and around 300 years later were moved by Emperor Constantine (the Great) to his new capital Constantinople (now Istambul in Turkey)”
“…The larger part of St. Andrew’s remains were stolen from Constantinople in 1210 and are now to be found in Amalfi in Southern Italy. In 1879 the Archbishop of Amalfi sent a small piece of the Saint’s shoulder blade to the re-established Roman Catholic community in Scotland.”

Most of the above are from RC sites.

Continue…

I have no problem with the tradition, especially if it is to the benefit of the Orthodox, like I said, in this case, I would encourage it.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

…Continued

Let me ask you a question, about the theory of the “legend of St Andrew”, when did it start? is it as old as Dvornik’s theory? Or did it start when the rank of Rome was threatened by Constantinople? When I ask you? And then question your own answer with the word why.

And then finally , maybe the following is why you have no problem if some believes in this “legend”:
radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=106196
Pope’s Speech Feast of St Andrew
(30 Nov 2006 RV) Pope Benedict XVI’s speech in the Patriarchal Cathedral of St George Istanbul, on the feast of St Andrew: Today, in this Patriarchal Church of Saint George, we are able to experience once again the communion and call of the two brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew, in the meeting of the Successor of Peter and his Brother in the episcopal ministry, **the head of this Church traditionally founded by the Apostle Andrew. **Our fraternal encounter highlights the special relationship uniting the Churches of Rome and Constantinople as Sister Churches.

Well, as the RCs say, “Rome has spoken the case is closed” so with that I will end it here, I hope.

May GOD Bless you all and forgive me if I offended someone, †††

Of course you wont find Rome denying Constantinople’s claims. Why would she? Especially in these Ecumenical times. And, as you have already stated, for which I am in agreement with, the legend could quite possibly be true. To this point, is it really important if its true or not?
However, to address your questions, I believe the Byzantines first tried to assert their founder as St. Anderw in the early 8th Century by the “Pseudo-Epiphanius”, I believed this was accompanied by the forgery of Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyrus.

Let us sum up the matter thus: While both traditions are found in each respective church, the Petrine tradition appears to more soundly hold up against sholarly scrutiny. However, in the traditions of the church, none of this matters much

God bless,

JJR

 

[Ignatios]

Greetings JJR1453 and blessings to you †††

I am glad to hear from you again, and mostly that you went by your advise to me in earlier post (#34) “… I would encourage you to take upon the sometime hard task…”

But, yes, and allow me to use your own words again*,"… it is something we all wrestle with…"* Amen to that.

So, I am sure you will excuse me now if I say that I may not be able to reply to you in the next couple of weeks since it is Christmas and the New year and all the things that it goes along with it, BUT, I will do my best to reply before that IF GOD grant me.
GOD bless you and cover you with HIS Mercy, Grace and Love.
In CHRIST †††

 

[Ignatios]

Hello again Brother Ignatios. I did have a good Thanksgiving, hope you had as well. Let me also apologize for my long absence; been hectic lately.

I must once again thank you for your encouraging words, I try constantly to broaden my horizons. Luckily enough, those horizons do stretch beyond that of the newadvent site.

As I have already offered, the Council of Chalcedon, in their letter to Marcian, state that Dioscorus “barked at the Apostolic See itself” and “even attempted” to excommunicate Leo. (Schwartz, Acta Conciliorium Oecumenicorum)

These are the words of the council, so your disagreement is not only with me, but also with the Church.

Greetings and blessings to JJR
CHRIST IS BORN
GLORIFY HIM †††
No need for apology brother, we all are in the same boat, when it is not hectic I start to worry.
And I must thank you in return for your kind words, May GOD reward you a thousand fold in return.
Now,

1. As for your statement above, I have looked and searched the Council of Chalcedon over and over, but with no sight of the Statement of Schwartz except in his writing, i.e.” barked at the Apostolic See itself”
   So,
2. From where I am standing now, I must dismiss it as - it is the way of Schwartz to describe that event, and NOT the words of the Council,
3. “UNLESS” you can share the letter of that Council where it states what Schwartz has listed in his writings and accorded it to the council.
4. GOD FORBID, I do not disagree with the Church, my contention here is not about disagreement with the Church but rather about an event whether it happened or not i.e. whether Dioscorus excommunicated Pope Leo or Not.
   The history’s records shows that he did, I gave you a respectful site to backup my information concerning this matter ( the Britannica that is ) and is it only the Britannica that says so? NO, it is even in the RC site the “ Newadvent” says the same thing along with many historical writing since you trust the newadvent site, why not use it for this matter let us take a look together :
   “ … But now, with his own creatures on the thrones of Antioch and Constantinople, and sure of the support of Chrysaphius, he stopped at Nicea, and with ten bishops launched an excommunication of St. Leo himself.” newadvent.org/cathen/05019a.htm
   Also from the site that you got the above statement from,i.e. Dr. Schatz in his book “Papal Primacy”2 chapters up, he says that”…he succeeded in posing an open challenge to Rome by refusing to allow the Roman legates to read to the council the letter of Pope Leo (“Tome Leo”) emphasizing the duality of natures; THEN HE EXCOMMUNICATED THE BISHOP OF ROME.” [ Click here](Click here)

So as we see even the RCs sites says the same thing that I said, that he excommunicated Pope St. Leo, and NOT attempted to.

To maybe paint a clearer picture for you dear brother, ask yourself this question: In Dioscorus’ “excommunication” of St. Leo, was Dioscorus successful in expelling St. Leo outside of communion from the Church? I hope that makes things a littler clearer for you.

U HUH! See! here is your problem, and honestly I do not blame you, since in the west especially the RCs when you say excommunication, that would mean to you to cut somebody off from the whole Church, and the reason for that, that the RCs see the Pope is the only one who can excommunicate and when he does that would mean the subject matter has been cut off from the whole Church, you do not take things with their historical context.

1. Excommunication does not mean to cut somebody off from the communion of the whole Church when it is on high levels namely between the Patriarchs, in this case it would only mean that he broke communion with him.
   Now, when Pope Leo was excommunicated by Pope Dioscorus, that only meant that there was no communion between the “TWO” Popes, even maybe between the two Churches,
2. If we read the history of those events we find that what I am saying is true and it fits perfectly, how is that? Pope Dioscorus, afterwards went in a campaign trying to get the other bishops to break communion as well with Pope St. Leo ( I believe here where the words “even attempt “to excommunicate Pope Leo” applies) that is to excommunicate him from the whole Church, and he was successful to some extend to gain the ears of the Emperor at that time Theodosios II to back him up.
   However, things had changed before he can achieve his intention, when Theodosios II had died suddenly and now we have another Emperor ( Marcian) who favored Pope St.Leo, and thus Pope Dioscoros went down the tube sort of speak.
3. So as we see that there is no evidence in the assertion of the RCC concerning the Primacy of Authority or jurisdiction over the other Holy Sees, there was the Emperors authority, whomever they favor, is a winner and whomever they don’t down he goes.

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

More to the point, this “proof of history” – for you – only speaks to the contrary. Dioscorus’ actions at the council, were nothing of a norm, and ran counter to the way the church saw things. Now, even someone with a moderate knowledge of church history will well discern this.
Allow me to quoye Dr. Schatz:
“For the Roman delegate Lucentius, Dioscorus’ crime was that he had ‘dared to hold a council without the authority of the apostolic see, something that has never happened beforeand should never happen’. He was not referring to the calling of the council as such, because it had been done by agreement with Rome and Roman delegates had been sent; he was thinking of the council’s actions, especially preventing the reading of Leo’s letter.”

1. Whether it was out of the norm or not, I only stated that the Alexandrians had a great influence and were the leaders in that period and time if you will, and all what you and I have posted show a clear evidence of what I have said concerning this matter.
2. Indeed Dioscoros actions were nothing of the norm and indeed ran counter to the way the Church saw things. i.e. the way he conducted the Council and the way usurped things etc… So if he didn’t have such influence, could he have done what he did, one might ask? Of course not… now was it right? Of course not, ( I am speaking generally without going into details)
3. As for Dr.Schatz’s quote, the TEXT says, that, “FOR THE ROMAN DELEGATE LUCENTIUS”, Dear Brother JJR, we must pay heed to the words that it is written and to what the TEXT is saying,It is clear what it says, the TEXT above is not according to the Church but to “LUCENTIUS” according to the TEXT that you have posted, this is not the view of the whole Church.
4. Now, what was the view of the rest of the Church? Let us take a look shall we?
   The Condemnation Sent by the Holy and Ecumenical Synod to Dioscorus.
   (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 459.)
   ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.x.html
   “ 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 (θεσμοῦ ) 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.”

If we read into the history of Dioscoros and that Council we find that the “other crimes” that they were speaking about, were that he killed a dog in a brutal way that used to accompanying him for some silly reason, accepting notorious harlots in his residence etc…

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

Dioscorus’ actions here are completely foreign, and in opposition, to what the church knew. In any case, I find it humorous that you try and “prove” your assertions based upon a council that was condemned and is shining example and how not to hold a council.

My “assertion” is based on council that it was condemned, true, But if the Council has been condemned that does not wipe out the facts that it took place in that time and the fact that that council existed and the fact that the Alexandrians possessed so much power and influence that it superseded all, nor does it make that Council as if it never happened.

Dioscoros’ ACTIONS are foreign, yes, I never spoke to support his actions, simply the subject is not about what you are arguing, but it is WHETHER THE POPE OF ALEXANDRIA HAD A POWER AND INFLUENCE AT ONE TIME THAT IT SUPERSEDED ALL OTHER’S INCLUDING THE POPE ROME, this is what the subject is about and this is what I am saying, nothing else.

No wonder why you found it humorous, since you lost track of what I was saying, the purpose of the historical evidence that I gave forth, was to show you that the pope of Alexandria at times had a great influence and power in the church that it superseded all the other Bishops including Pope Leo, and you structured an argument against something that is irrelevant to what I was conveying to you.

Therefore the humorous can only be found in all the effort that you spent to convey something that is not relevant to what I was saying, It seems like you lost me.

Here let me bring you back to the beginning of this argument to refresh your memory:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4461067&postcount=34

JJR:

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…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4463256&postcount=36

“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 Dioscorus at that time since they( the Alexandrians) were the leaders (If you will) in that time.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4468404&postcount=43

“ Could you possibly elaboarte on your assertion that: “they( the Alexandrians) were the leaders (If you will) in that time.”?”

And then I gave you the historical evidence of my “assertion” which you can read in the following post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4485346&postcount=59
Now the record is set straight.

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

Well, as you state, you were the first to offer words, so I merely was replying to you.

I stated a side comment, you replied as if it was the main subject, but it doesn’t matter.

Secondly, I would recommend actually reading Hefele, as I can only assume you have not.

And then you stated the following:

Of course you should expect that Hefele’s viewpoints agree with the Catholic Church,

In your next sentence directly above, you refuted yourself to what you have wrongly asserted about me in your first sentence, IAW, how could you assume that I didn’t read “Hefele” when you are agreeing with me concerning his writings ( which obviously I only was able to comment, after reading his writings) that I shouldn’t be surprised if he sided with the RCC.
Besides why not look in this thread I believe a couple pages back I cited him to show that even according to the most extreme one sided historians things still proves the opposite of what the other side was trying to assert. I believe it was about the African Church councils and Apiarius.

he sees – like many others – that history agrees with the Catholic perspective.

Okay, lets put “history and RC perspective” aside for a moment, and let us take what you have posted in the above, read it i.e. “…that history agrees with the Catholic perspective” My friend, this is an apologetic work, as a historian he suppose to write history as it is, when you start to “work on the bases” that “history agrees with me and not with you” then this would be an apologetic work, otherwise what is an apologetic? I ask you.

As you will well note after reading the Dr., he disagrees with many of his Catholic predecessors, such as he Ballerini and others, and thinks them too biased, in some respects. You may disagree, but as I have found,

I already have, and I made some notes for you about at least one to demonstrate for you and I have backed up my opinion about his writing from other scholars and I have posted that one for you too, you accusation is erroneous.because it is baseless.

many Orthodox tend to quote the man when trying to prove their own points. You think him an Apologist, while many would regard the man as a respected Historian.

God bless,

JJR

Many of his writing are valid for quoting to prove something or one particular thing, but not all of them, but this is does not rule out the fact that one can see clearly in some areas of his writings an evidence of an Apologetic work rather than a historian, My friend, a true and good historian must not be onesided, but must bring history as it is don’t matter what, for good or bad.

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

While it is easy to just state “that doesnt support your claim”, it would be harder to offer up evidence to support your claim.

Brother JJR, maybe you forgot that we are not the ones who are making the claims here, so therefore, how could we give support to our claim if we are not the ones who are making the claims i.e. the primacy of Authority or Jurisdiction over the whole Church is a RC claim NOT an Orthodox. I must regretfully admit, that your comments started to amaze me.

Having said that, I must highlight once again your lack of an adequate knowledge regarding the convocation of councils regarding the Bishop of Rome.

I honestly lost what you are trying to convey, Since you didn’t point out to what point you are talking about.
Could you please sermon on how am I “lack of an adequate knowledge regarding the convocation of councils regarding the Bishop of Rome”? and provide some validity in order for us to answer.

I dont so much fault you here, for I have observed myself those writings of very biased Catholic apologists who wish to skew the historical record to arrive at an extreme conclusion.

The previous statement you criticized me by saying” lack of an adequate knowledge”, and here directly above you don’t blame me, but you criticize the “very biased Catholic apologists”.

In the first millennium it was the Emperor who called for the Ecumenical councils, of this fact you have opposition from me and any objective Catholic scholar. However, he can not do this without the consent from the bishops, and most assuredly their head bishop.

First of all allow me to correct one thing in your sentence above for the record “…of this fact you have NO opposition…” you probably forgot to add the word “NO” If not please explain further.

Secondly according to historical record the Emperors did hold Councils without the consent of the Bishop(s) and/or their headbishop, However I do not put forth such assertions without presenting you with a deeds from History, shall we take a look together?:
All Ecumenical Councils were called at the commandment and will of the Emperors without any knowledge of the Pope (Damasus) in one case at least (1st Constantinople)44 See Hefele’s answer to Baronius’s special pleading. Hist. Councils, Vol. I., pp. 9, 10. without any consultation with the Headbishop of the Roman Church(Sylvester) in the case of I. Nice, and contrary to the expressed desire of the pope ( Leo I) in at least the case of Chalcedon, when he only gave a reluctant consent after the Emperor Marcian had already convoked the synod. From this it is historically evident that Ecumenical Councils were summoned without either the knowledge or consent of the See of Rome.
Well Dear brother JJR, you would be better off if you put your allegations into a test and research them before hand from the History to see if they measure up to the truth or not.

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

As far as the “presidency” you speak of, I may be a little confused. Are you referring to the presidency of the Ecumenical councils? Dear brother, if this is what you are referring to, it is common knowledge that the Bishop of Rome is the president of the Ecumenical council. This is why here I will not offer sources, that is unless you may wish to disagree. But just note, your church itself does not disagree.

God bless,

JJR

1)I couldn’t have said it any clearer than I did, here let me repost it again for you ( forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4485352#post4485352 “Still yet to give an evidence of the presidency that it was claimed by your church, all of the above does not support your claim, but the contrary, or where do you see the presidency of the Pope as claimed by your church in the above so far in relation to the ecumenical Councils.?” And let me clarify it further and pin point it out for you so you wont get confused any more, read the CCC = 881 …The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
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
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406
885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407
2) If you mean that it is a common knowledge that the Bishop of Rome is the president of the Ecumenical Councils as of honor then you will have no objection from me, but if you are implying that it is not honor but of authority, then please present us with the canon that supports your assertion.
3) If the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD does not disagree with the notion that the Pope has the Power and the authority in the Ecumenical Council as it is listed by your Church ( the CCC above) than again present us with the evidence from the Canon, Dear brother JJR, if the Orthodox Church does not disagree with this notion then, then please explain to me the problem that keeps us (RCC and OC) in schism?

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

Again we come back to the belief of the Pentarchy and the idea that Rome is only an equal member of that Pentarchy

Pente=five representing the five Sees, namely Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople.
Eparchial=District, region… so Pentarchy is : a group of five countries or districts each under its own ruler or government according to the dictionary.
If Rome was not one of the Pentarchy then the word would have been something like this – tesserarchy- tessera=four, But it is not four it is five. And if it was Four and NOT five , then we would have seen the word heirarch accorded to the Roman See alone, but we don’t .

. Since it seems we are on the subject of Chalcedon, let us view the letter sent from that council to Pope Leo:

“Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement.”, the synod goes onto state,"Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you; while our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem . (found in the Letters of Leo, Letter 98)
The letter from the Chalcedonian fathers to Leo addresses both of your concerns. First, it is only obvious how the councils views Leo “as their chief” and even more to the point, you assert that all the Pentarcy – which merely came about at this same synod – must submit, but then why would the council write personally to Leo asking his confirmation of the synod when his legates were present? The answer lies in that the legates objected to the 28th canon, and the council saw it fit to write to the Leo to receive his consent and confirmation. We may speak of the 28th canon if you’d like, I feel you may have the same arguements as your compatriots.

All the above are words of Honor ( you must take things within their historical context, must understand their customs back then and the way the Greeks spoke and what they meant when they said something), if we read the whole Epistle it would become evident as the sun that what I am saying is true, But before we go further let us look again at some of those quotations that you posted within their context …
“ … For if “where two or three are gathered together in His name,” He has said that “there He is in the midst of them,” must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you; whilst our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem”

Now since we posted the sentence within context it shows totally different things than what you are trying to make it sound like ( a very common thing among the RCs, in which we are used to it)

BUT, let us see what the Council also told Pope Leo as we read on in this Letter:
The letter starts like this:

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

“From the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo.
The great and holy and universal Synod, which by the grace of GOD and the sanction of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors has been gathered together in the metropolis of Chalcedon in the province of Bithynia, to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo.”
They didn’t say that they were gathered together by the Grace of GOD and the sanction of Pope Leo, but BY THE SANCTION OF THE EMPERORS.
Lets see what else this council told their”President Pope Leo” shall we:
“And we further inform you that WE HAVE DECIDED on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, WHEN YOU ARE TOLD.”
Hhhmmm what a way to speak to a President, besides it seems like they decided, but what about their “president pope Leo”, after all they didn’t see him as the president who has the power and authority over them.
Well things are not as some would like them to be, are they? Although they used at times some flowery names or some lofty words and they exalted him with some interesting titles, But that was the way Greeks spoke, it is known among the scholars the flowery words of the Greeks used, all that, was as a way of honoring him since he was a Saintly person with a great character and a definitely Genius and a great negotiator, no wonder why they gave him the Title Great.

Secondly, the council also speaks of the imperial delegates that held the “presidency by order”, that is to say, they held the physical order of the council, as Dioscorus and the Robber synod two years before proved that things could get wildly out of hand during such councils. One could also offer up such imperial “overseers” as that offered by the Emperor for the Third Ecumenical council of Ephesus, but these imperial overseers are always ordered to not take part on theological discussions and do not preside in that capacity. The letter form Chalcedon elaborately explains for us who is charged with that responsibility.

God bless,

JJR

I think you are skipping important parts of the council when you are reading it, such as,
Extracts from the Acts.Session I.
“…The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.279279 This statement, so absolutely contrary to fact, has been a sore difficulty to the commentators. Arendt (Leo the Great and his Times, § 270) says that this meant only that “he had, without permission of the Pope, taken the presidency there, and conducted the proceedings, for Leo himself had acknowledged the synod by the fact that he allowed his legates to be present at it.” Almost the same is the explanation of the Ballerini (Leo M. Opera, Tom. ii. 460, n. 15.)
Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop “Pope” for “bishop” in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
The most glorious judges and the full senate, said: It is proper that you should set forth specifically in what he hath gone astray.
Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he who is come to be judged should sit down [as one to give judgment].
The glorious judges and the whole senate said: If you hold the office of judge, you ought not to defend yourself as if you were to be judged.
And when Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly (τῆς ἱερᾶς συγκλήτου280280 The Latin here has the usual form “amplissimus senatus,” for which the Greek is περιφανέστατοι συγκλητικοὶ. ) had sat down in the midst, and the most reverend Roman bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence…” (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 93.)
And again during this council bishops said; “ … Let those who contradict be made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who contradict, let them go to Rome.”
Things in that council were standing on the edge for Leo, some suggested that if Dioscoros came when he was called, he might have turned things around on Leo.

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

Ive already addressed this above, but allow me offer a bit of advice brother. Just because a certain site may say one thing, does not mean that you are still not responsible for viewing all historical applications in their proper historical context. For instance, we agree that Dioscorus excommunicated Leo, but I think where me and the rest of the church disagree with you is the effectiveness of this excommunication. That is to say, Dioscorus verbally said “I excommunicate Leo”, but these words were as dust in the wind, and had entirely no effect. Again, this is why the council of Chalcedon, when writing to Marcian, state that Dioscorus “even attempted” to excommunicate Leo. You are in disgreement here with the church and the council fathers.

God bless,

JJR

Sorry but if you have already addressed the above, than it got lost somewhere, because I certainly don’t see it.
Dear brother, I agree that we must be able to view all historical applications BUT, as they are, and NOT as we would like them to be, If history said that he excommunicated Pope Leo ( even the newadvent and the reference which I believe you quoted from, that is Shatz’ book “ Papal Primacy” in the first chapter in page 43 stated the same thing I did ) that means he did so, attempted and did excommunicate Pope Leo are two different things, could it be that history contradicting itself? Of course NOT, BUT then how do we explain that, that even those who you are quoting from Dr. schatz said he did excommunicate Pope Leo but then a couple chapters down he said that he “even attempted”, what a contradiction !, BUT is it a contradiction ? or is it that you and many RCs are not taking the historical events within their context? What had happen then, if it is not contradiction? Did he or did he not? Well, when we take things in its historical context we find out that things back then ( for the RCs that is) were not the same as they are today, how is that? Nowadays in the RCC ONLY ONE who can excommunicate and no one can override his sentence and that is the Pope, so therefore when you read the word excommunicate you as a RC automatically this means to you that the subject matter had been cut off from the whole church, but back then when the RCC was still in communion with the rest of the Churches, when there was 5 pre-eminent bishops and when one excommunicate the other that meant that he broke communion with him and NOT cast him out side the whole Church, as you apparently see it now, only an Ecumenical Council is capable of doing such thing , So when Pope Dioscoros excommunicated Pope Leo, he broke communion with him, and he went on to try to get all the other Patriarchate ( as we find from reading the history of this controversy )to do the same, don’t remember whether it was a letter or during the council that some bishops said that he (Dioscoros) attempted to excommunicate Pope Leo, thus, the words “even attempted” applies, BUT not as you understand it, he (Disocoros) did broke communion with pope Leo (excommunicated him), But things had changed when the Emperor Theodosios had died suddenly and before Pope Dioscoros plan to excommunicate Pope Leo FROM THE WHOLE CHURCH bear any fruit.

Now, since the source of your disagreement with history is in fact your misunderstanding of the historical context, as I have prove for you above from history itself, So, I don’t see any need to respond to your accusation against me that I am in disagreement with the Church and the Fathers.

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

Ive already addressed all this so Im just copying and pasting in case you may overlook it:

Allow me to quote Dr. Schatz:

“For the Roman delegate Lucentius, Dioscorus’ crime was that he had ‘dared to hold a council without the authority of the apostolic see, something that has never happened beforeand should never happen’. He was not referring to the calling of the council as such, because it had been done by agreement with Rome and Roman delegates had been sent; he was thinking of the council’s actions, especially preventing the reading of Leo’s letter.” (Papal Primacy: from its Origins to the Present)

Dioscorus’ actions here are completely foreign, and in opposition, to what the church knew. In any case, I find it humorous that you try and “prove” your assertions based upon a council that was condemned and is shining example and how not to hold a council.

God bless,

JJR

*Also, you do know who it was that Flavian appealed to right?

You have addressed it and I responded to it( read after the third quote), and you are addressing it again with out anything new, with the same errors, so I will not exhaust the statements.
As for Flavian appealing to Rome, Appealing does not denotes presidency nor authority, for if it was, then, there is more then Leo as president of the Church, because Flavian also appealed to other bishops (the bishop of Dorylaeum to mention one) and you know who Leo appealed to, right?

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

What first is noticable about the site you have provided – and I do also use the CCEL site at times – is that it is in error in regards to Nicea I. There were 318 fathers assembled at Nicea and it was convoked in the year 325, perhaps this was the reason for its confusion.
In the case of Constantinople I, it was of course not Ecumenical, and only became so at the Council of Chalcedon. Speaking of Cahlcedon, Marcian himself called for the council only at the “favorable suggestions” of Pope Leo. In fact, shortly after Marcian was elevated to Emperor he wrote a letter to Leo notifying him of his promotion, and asked for the prayers of him who had the “oversight and the first place in the faith” (Leonis. Epist. 73)

If you would wish to downgrade any of this because it may be taken form Hefele – which any scholar would find ridiculous – you will well note the epistle can be also found in Hardouin and Mansi.

Also, Marcian writes in May for the calling of the council, while Leo wrote one month later in June to postpone the council to a later time(Because of Attila and his rading Huns). So, as far as Marcian knew, he was simply calling the synod in accordance with Leo’s suggestions. Leo even wrote later to the Emperor that he was disappointed(he didnt know Marcian had already called for the council before he wrote to him) that he had called for the council against his request, but made note that he would not oppose him out of love for peace and his fervent religious zeal(Leo had been too used to unCatholic Emperors, and was pleased with Marcian’s orthodoxy.)
Although you may wish to leave out the historical context of the day – which is very dangeorus to any historian – it will do you well in doing a bit more research, instead of just copying and pasting a quick google search.

God bless,

JJR

1. yes I saw that too and I myself think also that it was misprint, but if we look at history, we find that the numbers in that Council, are not all the same, Some historians said that there was as little as 225, Eusebius, and as much as 2000, the Arabic manuscripts, but the majority settled for 318 in the year 325a.d. but the exact date is still an endless debate amongst quite a few historians.
2. I think you are wrong again, it was not “ONLY” at the favorable suggestions of Leo, But also and firstly by Flavian himself for before he died he had “APPEALED” to a new council.
   “Flavian was so grossly maltreated by furious monks that he died of his wounds a few days later, in banishment, having first appealed to a new council.” ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.xii.xxiv.html?highlight=archimandrites#highlight
   And what Leo suggested is the following:
   It was the emperor Marcian who, after the “robber” council of Ephesus (449), commanded this council to meet. Pope Leo I was opposed to it. His view was that all the bishops should repent of their ways and individually sign his earlier dogmatic letter to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, and so avoid a new round of argument and debate. Moreover, the provinces of the West were being laid waste by Attila’s invasions. But before the pope’s view became known, the emperor Marcian had, by an edict of 17 May 451, convoked the council for 1 September 451. Although the pope was displeased, he sent legates: Paschasinus bishop of Lilybaeum, Bishop Lucentius, the priests Boniface and Basil, and Bishop Julian of Cos. No doubt Leo thought that the council would cause people to leave the church and go into schism. So he wanted it to be postponed for a time, and he implored the emperor that the faith handed down from ancient times should not become the subject of debate. The only business should be the estoration of the exiled bishops to their former positions. dailycatholic.org/history/4ecumen1.htm
3. Now, where you stated that Emperor “ that he was disappointed(he didnt know Marcian had already called for the council before he wrote to him) that he had called for the council against his request”
   Is a proof that the East didn’t see the Bishop of Rome to be the President, as the RCC today try to assert, Not to mention also that the Other Bishops of the East knew about it before Leo did and conceded, However, what Leo did when he found that out, did he annul the Council or did he conceded also?
4. If Leo was used to unCatholic Emperors, then how come he miscalculated the Orthodox catholic Emperor convocation’s to that Council, I disagree with you that Leo was too used to unCatholic Emperors, If Leo himself was an Orthodox, Then he could never get used to an unCatholic Emperors.
5. It is only in your words that I left out the historical context, but the fact has been copied and pasted, unaltered, unchanged, untampered with, within context and it was not of mine but of history and historians, Of course I have to copy and paste for you, or would you have been happier if I had made up my own history using a wishfull thought, or maybe you would have been satisfied if had personally typed for you of the many numerous books that I read with my imperfect third language ( English).
   Your focus my Friend should be on the contents of what has been presented, rather on how has it been presented.
   As for doing more research, I must thank you for your advise, we the Arabs value the advice and the adviser, however, I can’t research more than what GOD made me capable of, BUT I must thank HIM for what he had given me, Anyhow, I don’t see the need to do more research in order to correct your history and shed the light on the assertions in order to put things back into their context, and for one to do so all he has to do is copy and paste things within context.

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

If you are familiar with Constantinople II, you will note that the big trouble with it in the West was that the West felt it was trying to compromise with the Monophysites – which was really the main aim of Justinian – and felt that it gave up Chalcedon. Also, what was an issue was that the council was trying to condemen those that had died in the Catholic communion, that were, in any case, mostly unkown in the West. The real question we must ask ourselves, pertaining directly to our discussion, is why Justinian took such great measures to get Vigilius to confirm the council. He was tortured and mistreated. In any case, the council personally asked Vigilius to preside.

Please tell me that you are not trying to show the presidency of the Pope in the case of Vigilius, for the request made by Pope Vigilius to the Ecumenical Patriarch to be restored back into communion to the catholic and Orthodox Church also that was not only between him and the Eastern Bishops but also between him and the western Bishops as well since he was excommunicated by Western bishops too, if this is not enough for you to convince you, then, there would be nothing out there that could or could have been happened to convince you “… At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to the advice of the Council, and six months afterwards wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren…” (Fleury. Hist. Eccl., Liv. xxxiii. 52.)

Not sure which council youre speaking of here. If its Const. I, then I would agree. There is no need for them to notify Rome, it was a regional council set forth to deal with the Arian problem that was rampant in the East.

1. I was speaking about the 1st E.C.
2. “There is no need for them to notify Rome”, I agree from my point of view, BUT, shouldn’t they had let Rome know about it ( at least) since the Pope is the president, and since this General Council was about a dogmatic issues???
3. Constantinople I, was a Regional Council, the whole Church except Rome, so was the 1st.
   3)It was rampant, and they prevailed of keeping the Church in the East pure from those heresies, but things were different in the West were they kept fighting those heresies for centuries to come.

Well, you may take up a laugh if you’d like, but it would be at the expense of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, not Hefele.

O! you mean the Council that anathematized the heretics including ( Pope Honorius), Brother, you are going to where no RC would want to go, Anyhow, let me assure you that my laugh is at some of “Hefele” writing and NOT at the E.C.

What I would find humorous, is the pains at which you have taken to try and discredit Hefele, and his English translation. If this is the best you can find, then I would classify it – as many eminent scholars do – as one of the best works of the council ever produced

God bless,

JJR.

Brother, it is you who are exposing himself in taking the “PAINS” to try to put things in my mouth , just read your first sentence and than compare it with the rest, if you say that I am taking the “pains” to discredit the writing of Hefele, then how could you afterwards say that this the best works the council ever produced? How could you come to the conclusion that if I was trying to discredit Hefele I would be discrediting the council??? IAW, is the work that was produced by this council is Hefele’s writings??? Or tell me, if I am discrediting Hefele( with reason, rightfully so) how could that turn into discrediting the council’s work???

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

I dont understand what Constantinople I and the Pentarchy have to do with eachother? The Pentarchy only came about 70 years later…perhaps you can clarify?

CANON III.
THE Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.
In the above we see that Constantinople elevated to the rank of one of the pre-eminent Sees from now on there is five Sees that has a recognized honor, but if you are looking for when the word “Pentarchy” was incorporated (if you will) that was not until the 4th E.C.

I know that Constantine viewed himself as the “13th Apostle”, but this sort of train of thought was foreign to the church as regards doctrinal matters.

We are talking about “authority” in the E.C. again it is obvious that the Emperors are the ones who put the rules for the E.C. what should be discussed and what not and the ones who called for them and at times they presided over some of the sessions, the title of the Emperor was “equal to the Apostles” NOT the “13th Apostle” the later one is the Title of the Catholic Patriarch: “Bishop of Bishops, the Thirteenth of The Holy Apostles”.

You may be right that the Easterns thought of the Emperors as “Equal to the Apostles”,

They didn’t think of him as such, BUT again it was a honorary title since he was the reason for many to come to the faith, No offence, but, the average western mind of Christians if not all, always has to rationalize things and give it a legalization form.

This would not surprise me, as the Emperors constantly wished to mutter in strictly doctrinal affairs, and they are a principle reason why such heretical beliefs festered and were so prevalent in the East.

However, if one would look at the history with an open mind and rise himself over those thoughts, would be able to see clearly that because of the Emperors wish to mutter in doctrinal affairs ( although at times they were wrong) now we have the most venerable Councils i.e. the Seventh E.C. that kept the errors away from the Church ( the body of faithfull)
And also the west had numerous heresies without the Emperors as well, shall we start counting the heresies of the West even from earlier times than the ones we are talking about?

Many sources says that they spoke of both
Although, the Council spoke of the “holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea” , many sources and some are RCs says that this meant the Nicene creed in both Nicea and Const. I, since they recited the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Maybe you are unfamiliar that at the Council the Nicene Creed(published at Nicea without additions)

Is the above wishful thought, or you are trying to imply something here?

was read aloud at the council.

Maybe you are unfamiliar that there is enough evidence from both Orthodox and RCs that the Nicene Creed was recited in its entirety the Nicene-Constantinopolitan that is.

Was it recited elsewhere? Sure, so was the Apostles Creed, the Athanasian Creed etc…

However, the only Creed that was authoritative is the Nicene Creed i.e. Nicene-Constantinopolitan,
Also the earliest record for the Athanasian creed is in the 500’s a.d.

Already noted above, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was not recited at the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.

If we read the history we find that after the expansion of the Creed and submitted to the Emperor Thodosios the Council’s decision concerning the Holy Spirit made the Emperor Thodosios issue a decree that everyone has to adhere to it.
Let me “copy and paste” for you just a few things and Not the whole essay, so we don’t get ourselves locked into “ my word against yours”:
piar.hu/councils/ecum02.htm
J. Lebon, followed by J. N. D. Kelly and A. M. Ritter, who worked at the solution of this problem “All the forms, altered to some extent or other, were described by a common title as “the Nicene faith”.
spiritofhopecatholiccommunity.org/ecumenical.html
The Council declared that Jesus Christ is completely God and completely man (although without sin) and that Mary is rightly called the Mother of God. Furthermore, the Council declared that the Nicene Creed, defined during the first two Councils, was complete and never to be changed. 200 bishops attended.

continued…