S
smad0142
Guest
Someone once told me that one of the early Ecumenical Councils contains a statement that there can not be a Council without the Bishop of Rome. Can anyone provide a quote or tell me which Council? Thanks!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
That’s interesting. Of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome was present at a grand total of zero.Someone once told me that one of the early Ecumenical Councils contains a statement that there can not be a Council without the Bishop of Rome. Can anyone provide a quote or tell me which Council? Thanks!
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Sort of, with the exception that Pope Vigilius was physically present at the Fifth.That’s interesting. Of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome was present at a grand total of zero.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
No, that only seems to have appled to the last 15 Ecumenical Councils of the Western Church.Someone once told me that one of the early Ecumenical Councils contains a statement that there can not be a Council without the Bishop of Rome. Can anyone provide a quote or tell me which Council? Thanks!
R
RyanBlack
Guest
He was in Constantinople at the time of the Council, but did not attend. In fact, he refused to do so.Sort of, with the exception that Pope Vigilius was physically present at the Fifth.
T
The_Scott
Guest
Legates were sent, however. So in all intents and purposes, the Bishop of Rome was present.That’s interesting. Of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome was present at a grand total of zero.
T
Trebor135
Guest
To all the seven councils apart from the fifth?Legates were sent, however. So in all intents and purposes, the Bishop of Rome was present.
I’d also like to hear in what manner Catholics reconcile the Vigilius situation with the modern-day papacy…
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Yes, legates were present (although there were none at the Second Ecumenical Council), but I don’t agree that it equates with “in all intents and purposes, the Bishop of Rome was present.” The First Seven Ecumenical Councils were largely Eastern affairs, convened by Emperors, presided over by Eastern bishops (not papal legates, except at the Second Council of Nicea, where the papal legates presided shared with the Patriarch of Constantinople in presiding over the Council), and attended mainly be Eastern bishops. I just see no way to use the example of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils to prop up ultra-montane understandings of the papacy, which is what these discussion so often seem to be aimed at doing. On the other hand, I can agree with the assertion the Seven Ecumenical Councils would not be ecumenical apart from eventual acceptance by the See of Rome (after all, the status of the Councils as ecumenical is based on their acceptance by the entire Church).Legates were sent, however. So in all intents and purposes, the Bishop of Rome was present.
T
The_Scott
Guest
I’m afraid I can’t answer your question fully at the moment. I need to get this thesis paper done (the dreaded due date is coming up in a week!) Either way, hopefully someone can actually answer your question:To all the seven councils apart from the fifth?
I’d also like to hear in what manner Catholics reconcile the Vigilius situation with the modern-day papacy…
Regarding Vigilius and the Second Council of Constantiople, you may like to go to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
and here’s the entry for Pope Vigilius:
newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm
Sorry to just dump a couple links and leave, instead of actually answering the question.
Good luck finding what you’re looking for!
S
smad0142
Guest
Just to clarify I am not trying to push an argument, I just want to see whatever this person was referencing.
S
smad0142
Guest
Mind summarizing the situation for me? Thanks!To all the seven councils apart from the fifth?
I’d also like to hear in what manner Catholics reconcile the Vigilius situation with the modern-day papacy…
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
I
Ignatios
Guest
Not the 2nd nor the 5th.Legates were sent, however. So in all intents and purposes, the Bishop of Rome was present.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
To all the seven councils apart from the fifth?
I’d also like to hear in what manner Catholics reconcile the Vigilius situation with the modern-day papacy…
Yes, it would be helpful to have an appreciation of your understanding of the “Vigilius situation”, as you have put it. We might assume from your request as written that you believe there is something problematic in relation to the role of the papacy, but specifics would likely facilitate a more product exchange on the subject. Thanks!Mind summarizing the situation for me? Thanks!
T
Trebor135
Guest
Haha, my original statement was indeed vague. I’ll cite this comment by an Eastern Orthodox in the midst of arguing why the sixth ecumenical council ostensibly disproves Catholic doctrine about the papacy:Yes, it would be helpful to have an appreciation of your understanding of the “Vigilius situation”, as you have put it. We might assume from your request as written that you believe there is something problematic in relation to the role of the papacy, but specifics would likely facilitate a more product exchange on the subject. Thanks!
(I would recommend reading the surrounding discussion which gave rise to this snippet.)[We must not] ignore the Fifth council and what it did. First the Fifth council stated that no one bishop, because no one apostle, required the help of others for the execution of their work, the only way a common faith could be professed was that if they came together to decide such matters. They said this over against Pope Vigilius who claimed to lay down an “irreformable” judgment in his Judicatum, which the council overturned and excommunicated the pope. They did so stating quite clearly that while they excommunicated Vigilius, they were still in communion with the See of Rome.
S
smad0142
Guest
Having no real time to read the surrounding snippets right now, I will say one think.
One Bishop does not hold much weight in either Catholic or Orthodox circles. Plenty of Bishops have been wrong on their own before, in fact whole swaths of Bishops have been wrong before a la Arianism.
One Bishop does not hold much weight in either Catholic or Orthodox circles. Plenty of Bishops have been wrong on their own before, in fact whole swaths of Bishops have been wrong before a la Arianism.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Canon 4
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages [votes] of the absent also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
Nicea 325AD
Canon 5
Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.
Nicea 325AD
Canon XII. And XIII (XIII.)
If any one of the clergy or laity who is excommunicated, or not to be received, shall go away, and be received in another city without commendatory letters, let both the receiver and the received be excommunicated. But if he be excommunicated already, let the time of his excommunication be lengthened.
Apostolic Canons [uncertain dates]
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages [votes] of the absent also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
Nicea 325AD
Canon 5
Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.
Nicea 325AD
Canon XII. And XIII (XIII.)
If any one of the clergy or laity who is excommunicated, or not to be received, shall go away, and be received in another city without commendatory letters, let both the receiver and the received be excommunicated. But if he be excommunicated already, let the time of his excommunication be lengthened.
Apostolic Canons [uncertain dates]
S
smad0142
Guest
I am not trying to argue primacy or collegiality one way or another. I simply want to see the quote if anyone knows of it or can produce it.Canon 4
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages [votes] of the absent also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
Nicea 325AD
Canon 5
Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.
Nicea 325AD
Canon XII. And XIII (XIII.)
If any one of the clergy or laity who is excommunicated, or not to be received, shall go away, and be received in another city without commendatory letters, let both the receiver and the received be excommunicated. But if he be excommunicated already, let the time of his excommunication be lengthened.
Apostolic Canons [uncertain dates]
H
Hesychios
Guest
Getting back to (^ this) original question …Someone once told me that one of the early Ecumenical Councils contains a statement that there can not be a Council without the Bishop of Rome. Can anyone provide a quote or tell me which Council? Thanks!
I am unaware of any such formal statement. I am interested in anything that turns up, however.
For those who have the time, one can read the decrees or canons of the seven Councils and other texts here. Naturally, they have been superseded in the western church by the formally promulgated Code of Canon Law (first in 1917 - replaced in 1983), which probably does have such a statement written into it.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Sorry, I was not addressing your original question.I am not trying to argue primacy or collegiality one way or another. I simply want to see the quote if anyone knows of it or can produce it.
I am fairly certain that there is nothing whatever in the First Ecumenical Council (which would have set a definite precedent), and I am pretty sure that it was not mentioned at Arles,
There are some copies extant of some letters the emperor Constantine sent to the various bishops summoning them to the councils of Arles and Nicea (these can be read in Eusebius), and it doesn’t get any sort of mention in the one’s I have read.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.