No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

[Vico]

Presided over by the pope OR his legates

Which legates presided at 1st Ecumenical?

Did you read the Catholic Encyclopedia quote that I provided?
Will you provide the quote you are referring to please?

There were two kinds of presiding. When matters of faith were approved the papal legates presided. These were for the councils named:

1. Hosius, Vitus ,and Vincentius (estimated)
2. Count Candidian and Pope St. Cyril
3. Presiding papal legates: Paschasinus
4. Presiding papal legates: present
5. Presiding papal legates: present
6. Presiding papal legates: present

 

[Vico]

One can read of three categories of Papal confirmation covered in the Catholic Encyclopedia:"(2) The Second General Synod (381) was not, at first, intended to be Ecumenical; it only became so because it was accepted in the West, as has been shown above."

“1. Councils over which the pope presides in person require no further formal confirmation on his part, for their decisions formally include his own as the body includes the soul. The Vatican Council of 1869-70 offers an example in point.”

“2. Councils over which the pope presides through his legates are not identified with himself in the same degree as the former. They constitute separate, dependent, representative tribunals, whose findings only become final through ratification by the authority for which they act.”
Wilhelm, Joseph. “General Councils.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 29 May 2013

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

 

[Vico]

Did you read the Catholic Encyclopedia quote that I provided?
Will you provide the quote you are referring to please?

There were two kinds of presiding. When matters of faith were approved the papal legates presided. These were for the councils named:

1. Hosius, Vitus ,and Vincentius (estimated)
2. Count Candidian and Pope St. Cyril
3. Presiding papal legates: Paschasinus
4. Presiding papal legates: present
5. Presiding papal legates: present
6. Presiding papal legates: present

Note that at 5, no legates, rather Pope Vigilius did not appear, but gave his approval after the month long council was over.

Also another item from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Factors in the pope’s co-operation with the council

We have seen that no council is Ecumenical unless the pope has made it his own by co-operation, which admits of a minimum and a maximum consequently of various degrees of perfection. Catholic writers could have saved themselves much trouble if they had always based their apologetics on the simple and evident principle of a sufficient minimum of papal co- operation, instead of endeavouring to prove, at all costs, that a maximum is both required in principle and demonstrable in history. The three factors constituting the solidarity of pope and council are the convocation, direction, and confirmation of the council by the pope- but it is not essential that each and all of these factors should always be present in full perfection.

[factors following are: Convocation, Direction, Confirmation]

Wilhelm, Joseph. “General Councils.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 29 May 2013 newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

 

[Montalban]

Did you read the Catholic Encyclopedia quote that I provided?

Yes, I did. Surprisingly you’ll find several posts responding to your novel interpretation of ‘presiding’.

You’ve still not answered my question - which papal legates chaired 1st Ecumenical

You keep answering a different question.

If I had asked “Who chaired 1st Ecumenical?” your answer would match UNLESS you think

Hosius was a papal legate!

 

[Montalban]

Note that at 5, no legates, rather Pope Vigilius did not appear, but gave his approval after the month long council was over.

I ‘refuse’ to note it as you are moving away from my question.

Also another item from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Factors in the pope’s co-operation with the council

We have seen that no council is Ecumenical unless the pope has made it his own by co-operation, which admits of a minimum and a maximum consequently of various degrees of perfection. Catholic writers could have saved themselves much trouble if they had always based their apologetics on the simple and evident principle of a sufficient minimum of papal co- operation, instead of endeavouring to prove, at all costs, that a maximum is both required in principle and demonstrable in history. The three factors constituting the solidarity of pope and council are the convocation, direction, and confirmation of the council by the pope- but it is not essential that each and all of these factors should always be present in full perfection.

[factors following are: Convocation, Direction, Confirmation]

Wilhelm, Joseph. “General Councils.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 29 May 2013 newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

Thanks for ignoring my references from Eusebius - Life of Constantine. Further, I noted the newadvent site:
First Council of Constantinople
The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed. In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council

newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

Which is yet another thing you are ignoring.

 

[Montalban]

One can read of three categories of Papal confirmation covered in the Catholic Encyclopedia:"(2) The Second General Synod (381) was not, at first, intended to be Ecumenical; it only became so because it was accepted in the West, as has been shown above."

“1. Councils over which the pope presides in person require no further formal confirmation on his part, for their decisions formally include his own as the body includes the soul. The Vatican Council of 1869-70 offers an example in point.”

“2. Councils over which the pope presides through his legates are not identified with himself in the same degree as the former. They constitute separate, dependent, representative tribunals, whose findings only become final through ratification by the authority for which they act.”
Wilhelm, Joseph. “General Councils.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 29 May 2013

newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

Your posts keep avoiding my question

“Which papal legates presided over 1st Ecumenical” you tried a novel interpretation of ‘presiding’ to whit; the pope is always ‘presiding’ therefore the council held during his papacy is under his ‘presidency’ ; having him presiding over it… even if not present.

I mentioned that is not what your OWN source says - it says either the pope OR the papal legates have to preseide - explicitly showing that one of the two had to be there.

Which leads me back to WHICH PAPAL LEGATES lead the 1st Ecumencial

You keep avoiding answering because your own source says Hosius presided AND HE WAS NOT A LEGATE

At best they said he was ASSISTED by legates.

No wonder your posts don’t answer my question!

Simply put; according to the Catholic claims:

a) An ecumenical council has to be called for by a pope - this is not bourne out by evidence

b) An ecumenical council is one in which it is either headed by a pope OR, if headed by his legates is afterwards given the nod from the pope - which again is not bourne out by the evidence because there were no papal legates heading the 1st Ecumenical Council.

I also noted how the east accepted a council as Ecumenical way before a pope did.

This also still leaves the problem of councils ruling on matters as final, even where the pope’s already ruled!

The Catholic position is so full of holes that people have to come up with novel definitions to try and fit supremacy in

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Against my better judgment, I’ll descend into the fray…

Which leads me back to WHICH PAPAL LEGATES lead the 1st Ecumencial

You keep avoiding answering because your own source says Hosius presided AND HE WAS NOT A LEGATE

At best they said he was ASSISTED by legates.

I’m not sure I understand your contention. Are you trying to claim that Bishop Hosius of Cordova did not preside on behalf of Pope Sylvester at Nicea I? Why else would a bishop from Cordova preside at a council (instead of, say, the patriarch of Alexandria or the patriarch of Antioch, both of whom were present)? In any case, Genasius of Cyzicus is clear in his lists that Hosius was Sylvester’s representative (Hist. Nic. Conc., Bk. II, c. v).

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point…

Simply put; according to the Catholic claims:

a) An ecumenical council has to be called for by a pope - this is not bourne out by evidence

I’m not sure where you get this. Other posters have pointed out nicely that papal convocation is an ideal to be met, rather than a requirement. From the Catholic Encyclopedia: ’ Logically, and in the nature of the thing, the right of convocation belongs to the pope alone.’

This papal right of convocation was widely recognized, if not always observed. At any rate, the 6th Ecumenical Council was comfortable asserting that I Nicea was summoned by Constantine and Pope Sylvester. Maybe Constantinople III was mistaken about Sylvester’s role, but at the least it proves that papal convocation was something assumed as normal and natural.

The Eastern liturgy certainly considers Sylvester to be morally present/active at I Nicea: ‘Father Sylvester…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from the Egyptian error and continually leading them with unerring teaching to the divine light’ (from S.H. Scott’s ‘The Eastern Churches and the Papacy’).

I also noted how the east accepted a council as Ecumenical way before a pope did.

Are you referring to I Constantinople’s acceptance of I Nicea? I’m guessing that Roman approval was assumed, given that the first three signatures on the council’s lists belong to Hosius, Vicentius and Vitus, the latter two ‘in the name of the Church of Rome.’

This also still leaves the problem of councils ruling on matters as final, even where the pope’s already ruled!

I don’t understand how this is a problem. Could you flesh out this argument a bit?

 

[amalthomas]

against my better judgment, i’ll descend into the fray…

I’m not sure i understand your contention. Are you trying to claim that bishop hosius of cordova did not preside on behalf of pope sylvester at nicea i? Why else would a bishop from cordova preside at a council (instead of, say, the patriarch of alexandria or the patriarch of antioch, both of whom were present)? In any case, genasius of cyzicus is clear in his lists that hosius was sylvester’s representative (hist. Nic. Conc., bk. Ii, c. V).

Perhaps i’m misunderstanding your point…

I’m not sure where you get this. Other posters have pointed out nicely that papal convocation is an ideal to be met, rather than a requirement. From the catholic encyclopedia: ’ logically, and in the nature of the thing, the right of convocation belongs to the pope alone.’

this papal right of convocation was widely recognized, if not always observed. At any rate, the 6th ecumenical council was comfortable asserting that i nicea was summoned by constantine and pope sylvester. Maybe constantinople iii was mistaken about sylvester’s role, but at the least it proves that papal convocation was something assumed as normal and natural.

The eastern liturgy certainly considers sylvester to be morally present/active at i nicea: ‘father sylvester…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from the egyptian error and continually leading them with unerring teaching to the divine light’ (from s.h. Scott’s ‘the eastern churches and the papacy’).

Are you referring to i constantinople’s acceptance of i nicea? I’m guessing that roman approval was assumed, given that the first three signatures on the council’s lists belong to hosius, vicentius and vitus, the latter two ‘in the name of the church of rome.’

i don’t understand how this is a problem. Could you flesh out this argument a bit?

no document exists before council of chalcedon. All now we have are fake created by parties of rome an byzntine empire. After chalcedon, rome created a list of bishops beginning from st.peter an constantinople created a list of bishops beginning from st. Andrew.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Amal, why did you leave out the other fake parties of Antioch,Edessa, Alexandria, etc? If you are going to call one fake, why not all?
For some strange reason, you are very anti-Rome, anti-Greek, but no comment against Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian interfighting and struggles through the centuries. Why is that?

No Apostolic Churches deny the Apostolic origins of the other. Why do you?

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

no document exists before council of chalcedon. All now we have are fake created by parties of rome an byzntine empire. After chalcedon, rome created a list of bishops beginning from st.peter an constantinople created a list of bishops beginning from st. Andrew.

Are you referring to lists of apostolic succession?

I’m not. I’m referring to the signers of the First Council of Nicea. These lists are handed on by the church historian Gelasius and by the Archbishop Mansi. I’m not aware that these lists are disputed, but please correct me if I’ve overlooked something.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are you referring to lists of apostolic succession?

I’m not. I’m referring to the signers of the First Council of Nicea. These lists are handed on by the church historian Gelasius and by the Archbishop Mansi. I’m not aware that these lists are disputed, but please correct me if I’ve overlooked something.

Amal’s posts can be rather… creative.

 

[amalthomas]

Are you referring to lists of apostolic succession?

I’m not. I’m referring to the signers of the First Council of Nicea. These lists are handed on by the church historian Gelasius and by the Archbishop Mansi. I’m not aware that these lists are disputed, but please correct me if I’ve overlooked something.

The following are the words made by head of the syro malabar catholic church, Cardinal George alencherry.
The Catholic Church through the Council for Christian Unity, has already begun a dialogue on the primacy. I think we should continue the dialogue and seek a common agreement with the Eastern Churches, as there was in the first four centuries of Christianity. At that time there was a common understanding of the primacy. Now the Orthodox Church argues that it is impossible to go back to theology before the Council of Chalcedon because we do not possess any documents from that era. But I think that from the documents and statements subsequent to the time of Chalcedon there would be the possibility of dialogue and agreement on the Petrine ministry. Because there is the phrase primus inter pares. We all need a Petrine ministry of unity, which is a reference for all the Churches. I hope that a halfway point is found where the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches could come together in full communion with the Church of Christ.

 

[Aramis]

There is not a ‘single chair of Peter’ - several Sees claim Petrine descent, including my own - the Antiochian

There is only one see where Peter didn’t turn it over to someone else while still alive: Rome. In all other places, they were his disciples, not his heir.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The following are the words made by head of the syro malabar catholic church, Cardinal George alencherry.
The Catholic Church through the Council for Christian Unity, has already begun a dialogue on the primacy. I think we should continue the dialogue and seek a common agreement with the Eastern Churches, as there was in the first four centuries of Christianity. At that time there was a common understanding of the primacy. Now the Orthodox Church argues that it is impossible to go back to theology before the Council of Chalcedon because we do not possess any documents from that era. But I think that from the documents and statements subsequent to the time of Chalcedon there would be the possibility of dialogue and agreement on the Petrine ministry. Because there is the phrase primus inter pares. We all need a Petrine ministry of unity, which is a reference for all the Churches. I hope that a halfway point is found where the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches could come together in full communion with the Church of Christ.

Amal, more important that that quote taken out of context is this:

Yet there were also heated controversies in the Syro-Malabar Church between those who support the full recovery of the traditional liturgical heritage and those who consider this a form of traditionalist aesthetic. Between the ‘chaldean*izers’ and the ‘latinizers’ …
I will tell you: if something is Chaldean, or European, or from any other place, what is valid is valid. But some, as a result of latinization, are convinced that what belongs to Western culture is good and that what comes from the East is not good. It is an impression created by the latinization, to which we have been subjected for three centuries. Although the universal Church with the Second Vatican Council has given us the freedom to recover the valuable elements of our heritage, a large part of the Church has forgotten them and does not feel the need for this recovery. They say: we will continue to move forward with what we have now, and if we need anything else, we’ll take it from the Latin Church. This is their attitude. Others respond that in order to continue being what we are, we must first of all recover what has been taken from us and that we have lost.
I, in my office, will try to create more unity and a certain uniformity in liturgical celebrations. Not a complete uniformity, but unity on the essentials. To be implemented little by little. Gradually. For example, at first in the Latin Church there were those who said that we celebrate facing the wall. But facing the East is not to have your face to the wall. It is to look at where the Lord comes from. In the theology of our Church, the celebrant and the people offer sacrifice together to God the Father, facing East.

 

[amalthomas]

Amal, why did you leave out the other fake parties of Antioch,Edessa, Alexandria, etc? If you are going to call one fake, why not all?
For some strange reason, you are very anti-Rome, anti-Greek, but no comment against Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian interfighting and struggles through the centuries. Why is that?

No Apostolic Churches deny the Apostolic origins of the other. Why do you?

I asked you many times to give an account of Asssyrian interfighting and struggles. But you are not ready. Now also I request you to give an account of incidents happened in these churches, especially before the 15th century. I think after 15th century, there was european interference in these churches and as a result a lot of struggles took place. So please give an account of the strucggles before 15th century.
Also I note that Bar hebreus, a jacobite scholar has given a detailed description of all assyrian patriarchs. Why is that? If there were so much strucggles, will such a thing happen? If I say that the relation between assyrian church and jacobite church during that time was exactly same as the current relation between jacobite church in india and malankara orthodox church in india, is it right? I found that assyrian church had 20 metropolitan sees and 200 bishops at a time. It expanded from persia to afghanistan, korea, china and japan during the time of patriarch Timothy. What was the theology they used to spread the church to such a vast extent. Did they accept jacobite patriarch as the successor of Peter at that time?

 

[Cavaradossi]

There is only one see where Peter didn’t turn it over to someone else while still alive: Rome. In all other places, they were his disciples, not his heir.

St. John Chrysostom taught otherwise.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Now the Orthodox Church argues that it is impossible to go back to theology before the Council of Chalcedon because we do not possess any documents from that era.

If you’re saying that a discussion of the role of the papacy in the first two ecumenical councils is significantly more difficult because most of the acts are not extant, then I agree.

But in the instance of I Nicea, we do have testimony from Eusebius, Socrates, Rufinus, Gelasius and others which can at least allow for educated guesses.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I asked you many times to give an account of Asssyrian interfighting and struggles. But you are not ready. Now also I request you to give an account of incidents happened in these churches, especially before the 15th century. I think after 15th century, there was european interference in these churches and as a result a lot of struggles took place. So please give an account of the strucggles before 15th century.
Also I note that Bar hebreus, a jacobite scholar has given a detailed description of all assyrian patriarchs. Why is that? If there were so much strucggles, will such a thing happen? If I say that the relation between assyrian church and jacobite church during that time was exactly same as the current relation between jacobite church in india and malankara orthodox church in india, is it right? I found that assyrian church had 20 metropolitan sees and 200 bishops at a time. It expanded from persia to afghanistan, korea, china and japan during the time of patriarch Timothy. What was the theology they used to spread the church to such a vast extent. Did they accept jacobite patriarch as the successor of Peter at that time?

The Assyrian Church became isolated from Antioch because of external political happenings beyond anyone’s control. The Church was stuck between Persia and Roman Empires. Eventually it gained it’s own head, and stopped looking to anyone, and were in communion with no one else.

As to relations between Alexandria and Antioch, there were many periods out of Communion, look at the list of Saints in one church considered heretics in the other. Also between Antioch and Armenia. Look at the divisions between TurAbdin, Damascus, Antioch, and Mardin - each had it’s own patriarch elected at one point. The same issues in the Assyrian Church, including fighting over hereditary succession and switching allegiances. One group even joined the Russians in more recent history.

 

[Montalban]

I’m not sure I understand your contention. Are you trying to claim that Bishop Hosius of Cordova did not preside on behalf of Pope Sylvester at Nicea I? Why else would a bishop from Cordova preside at a council (instead of, say, the patriarch of Alexandria or the patriarch of Antioch, both of whom were present)? In any case, Genasius of Cyzicus is clear in his lists that Hosius was Sylvester’s representative (Hist. Nic. Conc., Bk. II, c. v).

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point…

Are you assuming because he’s from ‘Spain’ he’s western, therefore under the pope?

As well as that you failed to notice the evidence I gave from the Catholic Encyclopdia that said he was head and ASSISTED BY the papal legates; that is, he’s distinguished from them. Else it would read “assisted by OTHER papal legates”.

I’m not sure where you get this. Other posters have pointed out nicely that papal convocation is an ideal to be met, rather than a requirement.

I cited evidence

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: ’ Logically, and in the nature of the thing, the right of convocation belongs to the pope alone.’

This papal right of convocation was widely recognized, if not always observed. At any rate, the 6th Ecumenical Council was comfortable asserting that I Nicea was summoned by Constantine and Pope Sylvester. Maybe Constantinople III was mistaken about Sylvester’s role, but at the least it proves that papal convocation was something assumed as normal and natural.

That’s the problem. You’re saying it’s his right alone, but often ignored; it’s you using an argument from silence – without recognising it as such. It’s making a claim to the pope having power, but showing where that was ignored; thus I would question you assumption he had that power.

The Eastern liturgy certainly considers Sylvester to be morally present/active at I Nicea: ‘Father Sylvester…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from the Egyptian error and continually leading them with unerring teaching to the divine light’ (from S.H. Scott’s ‘The Eastern Churches and the Papacy’).

I would accept that his legates representing him in effect meant he had a presence. I don’t see that means he ruled over the council, either himself or through them. I’m sure other people ‘appeared’ by proxy too. The emperor wasn’t always physically at a council.

Are you referring to I Constantinople’s acceptance of I Nicea? I’m guessing that Roman approval was assumed, given that the first three signatures on the council’s lists belong to Hosius, Vicentius and Vitus, the latter two ‘in the name of the Church of Rome.’

Are you now saying that the signature of the legates means that the pope doesn’t have to then confirm it?

 

[Montalban]

There is only one see where Peter didn’t turn it over to someone else while still alive: Rome. In all other places, they were his disciples, not his heir.

No. I appreciate the continual Catholic supposition. You’ve made an interpetation that’s adding detail not in the facts.

A pope himself called all three Sees ‘one’. He saw nothing to distinguish the two

Pope Gregory
"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors…
Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one…
He himself stablished (sic) the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. "
To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria Book VII, Epistle XL

Theodoret also refers to other Sees being thrones of Peter.:
Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles." Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople