M
- Status
M
Montalban
Guest
*Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the primacy of authority of Peter and his successors he stated:
But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] … Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.*
ewtn.com/expert/answers/papal_primacy.htm
Now that we’ve re-established what papal supremacy is, we can examine this against what Ignatius said.
The short answer is NOTHING about the papacy.
But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] … Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.*
ewtn.com/expert/answers/papal_primacy.htm
Now that we’ve re-established what papal supremacy is, we can examine this against what Ignatius said.
The short answer is NOTHING about the papacy.
S
smad0142
Guest
Montalban,
I will come back to answer in about a week. I really am terribly sorry for this but I have a graduate school test in 8 days that I really need to focus on a little bit more. I saw your response though and I will get to it as soon as I am back. In your charity please pray for my success on this test.
But I will leave one point since it is easy to make in passing. How do we know which Bishop to follow locally? Is it only in reference to the communion one Bishop has with the whole Church? Does not the Saint’s quote inherently assume that we are able to identify who the legitimate Bishop is? And is there any other way to know a legitimate Bishop except by his communion with the rest of the Apostolic College? It certainly seems to me that one needs to know a lot more than just the Bishop in order to identify the Church.
I will come back to answer in about a week. I really am terribly sorry for this but I have a graduate school test in 8 days that I really need to focus on a little bit more. I saw your response though and I will get to it as soon as I am back. In your charity please pray for my success on this test.
But I will leave one point since it is easy to make in passing. How do we know which Bishop to follow locally? Is it only in reference to the communion one Bishop has with the whole Church? Does not the Saint’s quote inherently assume that we are able to identify who the legitimate Bishop is? And is there any other way to know a legitimate Bishop except by his communion with the rest of the Apostolic College? It certainly seems to me that one needs to know a lot more than just the Bishop in order to identify the Church.
M
Montalban
Guest
Good luck. I’ll pray for you.
This is further and further away from the subject.
We know Jesus was God by his union of love with the other persons of the Trinity
M
Montalban
Guest
Regarding another council catholic apologists were liberal with the truth too.
Fathers Rumble and Carty stated* “The Council of Ephesus in 431, embracing all Bishops and not even held at Rome, decreed, “No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment.” *
Fathers Rumble and Carty (1943) *True Church Quizzes *(Radio Replies Press, St. Paul 1, Minnesota, U.S.A)
They are however being liberal with the facts, for whilst it is true that the statement was made at the council the statement was **not **a decree of the council. It was a statement by a priest during its deliberations. This priest, Philip was there to represent the pope. As it was not a decree or finding made by the council it remains Philip’s opinion.
Misrepresenting facts happens because they believe that papal supremacy is true and their eyes light up if they see any incident of someone declaring what they already hold to be true. Context doesn’t matter
Fathers Rumble and Carty stated* “The Council of Ephesus in 431, embracing all Bishops and not even held at Rome, decreed, “No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment.” *
Fathers Rumble and Carty (1943) *True Church Quizzes *(Radio Replies Press, St. Paul 1, Minnesota, U.S.A)
They are however being liberal with the facts, for whilst it is true that the statement was made at the council the statement was **not **a decree of the council. It was a statement by a priest during its deliberations. This priest, Philip was there to represent the pope. As it was not a decree or finding made by the council it remains Philip’s opinion.
Misrepresenting facts happens because they believe that papal supremacy is true and their eyes light up if they see any incident of someone declaring what they already hold to be true. Context doesn’t matter
K
kotim
Guest
Hi Montalban,
Whilst what you say may be correct in relation to the quote from Fathers Rumble and Carty, if I rephrase context and say that there is a meeting of Orthodox representatives tomorrow and the Patriarch of Constantinople cannot attend but a priest will attend in his stead…
If that priest was to declare the following during the meeting,
“No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment.”
What would be the response from the others.
Me myself and I from past participation and discussion with Orthodox faithfull would say that the current Orthodox Church would find that extremely offensive and get very upset.
In fact I would expect that if such things were said there would be riotous uproar, or do you think there would be no response from the other Orthodox at the meeting.
In Christ
Tim
Whilst what you say may be correct in relation to the quote from Fathers Rumble and Carty, if I rephrase context and say that there is a meeting of Orthodox representatives tomorrow and the Patriarch of Constantinople cannot attend but a priest will attend in his stead…
If that priest was to declare the following during the meeting,
“No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment.”
What would be the response from the others.
Me myself and I from past participation and discussion with Orthodox faithfull would say that the current Orthodox Church would find that extremely offensive and get very upset.
In fact I would expect that if such things were said there would be riotous uproar, or do you think there would be no response from the other Orthodox at the meeting.
In Christ
Tim
M
Montalban
Guest
I have no idea what your post is about.
What I posted was where a claim is made that a statement was made by the council, rather than a person at that coucil.
K
kotim
Guest
Montalban, I am responding to the post by you today as follows
**Regarding another council catholic apologists were liberal with the truth too.
Fathers Rumble and Carty stated “The Council of Ephesus in 431, embracing all Bishops and not even held at Rome, decreed, “No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment.”
Fathers Rumble and Carty (1943) True Church Quizzes (Radio Replies Press, St. Paul 1, Minnesota, U.S.A)
They are however being liberal with the facts, for whilst it is true that the statement was made at the council the statement was not a decree of the council. It was a statement by a priest during its deliberations. This priest, Philip was there to represent the pope. As it was not a decree or finding made by the council it remains Philip’s opinion.
Misrepresenting facts happens because they believe that papal supremacy is true and their eyes light up if they see any incident of someone declaring what they already hold to be true. Context doesn’t matter**
Montalban, my post addresses this issue above.
The claim is very very specific, The Representative of the Bishop of Rome is making an unequivocal claim of the headship of the Bishop of Rome, its as clear as day this is the claim he is making.
What I am asking you is, Where is the uproar from the other attendees at the council.
If this claim is so foreign to the Church then this alone would have brought immense displeasure.
In relation to the claim I could say to you, that the claim was allready known, as such there was no need to affirm something that is allready known and accepted. What I just said is something that someone could say, but that is not the thrust of my question,
My question relates to the claim made by the Rep of the Bishop of Rome. Put it this way, if you were at a gathering which was attended by your Bishop tomorrow and he came out and said,
No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment.”
What would your response be, because that is the crux of the question I am asking you. The Popes rep has made a pretty audacious claim, yet there is no rioting verbally or otherwise.
In Christ
Tim
.
**Regarding another council catholic apologists were liberal with the truth too.
Fathers Rumble and Carty stated “The Council of Ephesus in 431, embracing all Bishops and not even held at Rome, decreed, “No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment.”
Fathers Rumble and Carty (1943) True Church Quizzes (Radio Replies Press, St. Paul 1, Minnesota, U.S.A)
They are however being liberal with the facts, for whilst it is true that the statement was made at the council the statement was not a decree of the council. It was a statement by a priest during its deliberations. This priest, Philip was there to represent the pope. As it was not a decree or finding made by the council it remains Philip’s opinion.
Misrepresenting facts happens because they believe that papal supremacy is true and their eyes light up if they see any incident of someone declaring what they already hold to be true. Context doesn’t matter**
Montalban, my post addresses this issue above.
The claim is very very specific, The Representative of the Bishop of Rome is making an unequivocal claim of the headship of the Bishop of Rome, its as clear as day this is the claim he is making.
What I am asking you is, Where is the uproar from the other attendees at the council.
If this claim is so foreign to the Church then this alone would have brought immense displeasure.
In relation to the claim I could say to you, that the claim was allready known, as such there was no need to affirm something that is allready known and accepted. What I just said is something that someone could say, but that is not the thrust of my question,
My question relates to the claim made by the Rep of the Bishop of Rome. Put it this way, if you were at a gathering which was attended by your Bishop tomorrow and he came out and said,
No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment.”
What would your response be, because that is the crux of the question I am asking you. The Popes rep has made a pretty audacious claim, yet there is no rioting verbally or otherwise.
In Christ
Tim
.
M
Montalban
Guest
No. It’s stating a council, consisting of ‘x’ amount of people decreed…
That council did not make such a decree.
I can only guess you’re not aware of the meaning of the word.
That is a misrepresentation. You ignore that.
Your next part of your argument is based on an argument from silence. It goes “There was no obvious uproar therefore they approved of it”
If they approved of it, it’d be one of their DECREES and it isn’t
So you’re welcome to speculate all you want on why you think they were silent.
People can make announcements at councils that aren’t in agreement with the mind of the church.
We know that the records of these councils is not always complete. That’s a fact. From a non-fact (silence) you choose to insert your own supposition into it based on a belief you already hold to and working back and slipping that in, like a “Supremacy of the Gaps” theory.
You’re welcome to do that
You ask me to speculate…
As for my own point of view - if someone said such a thing in my presence and I was in a church council then for the sake of harmony I would ignore it.
Perhaps you think other bishops should have dragged him out if they disagreed with him?
This happened in other circumstances too. Marcus Porcius Cato insisted in every speech before the senate to add in a sentence about Carthage. There’s no record of people continually telling him to get on with it, or leave it alone.
I can argue all I want from that silence too. Except I prefer facts
M
Montalban
Guest
After Cyril’s anathemas were read at the Council of Ephesus the next thing we know is that no action is recorded on them.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.x.html
This has lead people to speculate that his anathema’s were not accepted. That’s an argument from silence.
There being no record of any such action.
Of course one can reasonably assume from other evidence what happened; such as the fact that they were accepted at a later council
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.vii.html
What we do know also, from the ‘silence’ regarding a papal pronouncement on behalf of a legate is
a) it wasn’t accepted (as it’s not a canon or decree)
and
b) see a)
If it were the ‘mind of the church’ it’d be a)
That it isn’t a) is enough for me.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.x.html
This has lead people to speculate that his anathema’s were not accepted. That’s an argument from silence.
There being no record of any such action.
Of course one can reasonably assume from other evidence what happened; such as the fact that they were accepted at a later council
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.vii.html
What we do know also, from the ‘silence’ regarding a papal pronouncement on behalf of a legate is
a) it wasn’t accepted (as it’s not a canon or decree)
and
b) see a)
If it were the ‘mind of the church’ it’d be a)
That it isn’t a) is enough for me.
M
Montalban
Guest
Aside from your silence on the issue of misrepresenting a claim as a let’s try another argument from silence.
The pope had legates at the 2nd Ecumenical Council.
That council in Canon 3 raised Constantinople in rank over several other older Sees to be 2nd in honour only to Rome.
There is TOTAL SILENCE from those legates to this action. By your ‘logic’ this means that they approved of it.
Yet two more councils later, confirming the same issue (in Canon 28) Rome protested the raising of Constantinople to 2nd place in honour
*"Remarkable enough it is that when, in the Council of Chalcedon, appeal was made to this third Canon, the Pope St. Leo declared that it had never been notified to Rome. As in the mean time it had taken effect throughout the whole East, as in this very council Nectarius, as soon as he is elected, presides instead of Timothy of Alexandria, it puts in a strong point of view the real self-government of the Eastern Church at this time; for the giving the Bishop of Constantinople precedence over Alexandria and Antioch was a proceeding which affected the whole Church, and so far altered its original order—one in which certainly the West might claim to have a voice. Tillemont goes on: “It would be very difficult to justify St. Leo, if he meant that the Roman Church had never known that the Bishop of Constantinople took the second place in the Church, and the first in the East, since his legates, whose conduct he entirely approves, had just themselves authorized it as a thing beyond dispute, and Eusebius of Dorylæum maintained that St. Leo himself had proved it.” The simple fact is, that, exceedingly unwilling as the Bishops of Rome were to sanction it, from this time, 381, to say the least, the Bishop of Constantinople appears uniformly as first bishop of the East. *
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html
By your logic; arguing from silence - it was first approved of (because of silence) and then two more councils later they were protesting it!
We know later that this council too was adopted by Rome (c.1400s)
That means that they accepted a change in Constantinople’s status, then protested it, then accepted it!
:
S
Schism_hater
Guest
Tim, you make the mistake so many RC apologists do when reading statements by the Bishops of Rome in the first millenium and Eastern non-responses to them. You assume that silence means assent. That is an unwarranted assumption. The fact is that the Eastern fathers and patriarchs often didn’t openly revolt against papal claims because they were more concerned with maintaining the peace and unity of the Church, and sometimes, more selfishly, they didn’t want to alienate Rome because they needed its agreement or help on something else. You could justifiably accuse the East sometimes of being overly diplomatic or not entirely forthright. The simple fact is that the East ultimately refused to accept the papal claims as the latter developed and finally solidified in the 11th century. I would respectfully suggest that looking for “gotcha” moments in church history does not further constructive discussion.
M
Montalban
Guest
Absolutely right!
Catholics start with the premise of the papacy and then fit this into everything - even when there’s no evidence.
I have shown in the post above that I can easily construct an argument from silence of the papal legates at 2nd Ecumenical Council to it’s 3rd canon
A
Aramis
Guest
Orthodox denials of the existence of Roman authority and active interventions, when historically obvious, doesn’t do any favors either.
Rome had some authority - the issue is how much, not if. Byzantium also exercised considerable authority, but only within its own patriarchate. The 6th or 7th century Assyrian patriarch noted that the pope was to patriarchs as patriarchs were to bishops - which again is considerable authority, but not nearly as much as Rome has evolved to.
The Ecumenical Councils were such more because of the Byzantine Emperors than because of the Papacy, in my personal view. The Orthodox apologist claim that it’s merely due to reception by the churches is a logical falacy so broad that one could drive a continent through it - many other councils accepted throughout were not considered ecumenical.
But the RC claim that it’s acceptance by the popes isn’t entirely true, either - the popes do now accept the 7… but ignore several of the canons (Including the one about standing while praying on sundays).
That leaves the imperial aspect. As a historian, the 7 ECs are most notable for their support by the Byzantine state, and for their anathemas being essentially regional and imperial politics on a grand scale. As a historian, they impeach the byzantine churches’ claims, in exactly the same way the crusades impeach the Romans.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
A bit strange that an Assyrian of any rank would say that in the 6th or 7th centuries, since they had broken communion long before, surely it must have been a bishop within the communion? But either way, your assertion that it “is considerable authority” is incorrect. There isn’t that big a difference between a patriarch and a bishop. The statement stands as testimony to what Orthodox have always said the role of the Pope was - a spokesman and someone who could be called on to mediate between patriarchs.
M
Montalban
Guest
I don’t deny Rome had/has authority.
However you’re replying to an immediate discussion about an argument Catholics are making from silence.
Absolutely. However this is troublesome for Catholics because they want to say that this is a truth of faith; that never changed; then argue for the ‘development’ of papal power within the church - and by development I mean a gradual acquisition of power
M
Montalban
Guest
Some people aren’t aware of their own educational baggage.
Americans have a president. He is supreme in executive power. Language used in the church re: a presiding pope leads American Catholics to think in similar terms to the presidency of their own country.
They have difficulty imagining any other model - because their’s is normative.
I’m in Australia. I get to see a different alternative
Australia is in a Commonwealth of Nations. The ‘head’ of the Commonwealth is the Queen. She is the visible source of unity.
However each Commonwealth nation (e.g. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, the United Kingtom etc.) are fully independent nations - they are therefore as I see it more like the different national churches that make up Orthodoxy
In fact even though the Queen is ‘head’ of the Commonwealth some nations such as India are republics. Therefore she has no de jure power in their systems at all.
When CHOGM meets the Queen is first in honour
In that sense she has a primacy. And, she presides
M
Montalban
Guest
I have taken time to examine this evidence and thought to now add a further reply.
Firstly I accept that this historian says that Hosius represented the pope
There are several problems however
a) he wrote 150 years after the fact
b) earlier historians did not list Hosius as a legate
“But Morse, in his article on Hosius in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, shows that that notion originated with the very inaccurate Gelasius of Cyzicus in the last half of the fifth century and that Eusebius of Caesarea who was present at the Council enumerates only the two Roman Presbyters, Vitus and Vincent, as Roman legates, and that Sozomen does the same,”
Chrystal, J. (1891) Authoritative Christianity. The First Ecumenical Council: That is the first Council of the whole Christian World, which was held AD 325 at Nicea in Bithynia, Vol. 1 (James Chrystal Publisher; New York), p279.
c) even if he did represent the pope he still only had one vote; the council made a decision based on a majority of votes
d) the acts of the council don’t support the pope - they confirmed limits on bishops - that they were only to be appointed locally.
e) the council itself worded its ruling on Arius as final - even though the pope had already ruled against Arius several years earlier. It would be odd for the pope to send legates to a matter he’d already ruled upon if that ruling was final and binding on the church entire.
T
tdgesq
Guest
I’ve already answered this, but you apparently aren’t reading what I write. The East accepted it as ecumenical because its decrees are very similar to the tome sent to the council (Constantinople I) earlier by Pope Damasus. Not an example of an ecumenical council in spite of Rome. Need to read.
I’m afraid not. This is a valid interpretation, and it does not contradict anything I’ve stated up to this point. It is clear that at the time of Chalcedon from the writings of Pope Leo that Rome hadn’t received the decrees of Constantinople I. Here is a portion of one of Leo’s letters to the Bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedon rebuking him over Canon 28 of Chalcedon:
“For your purpose is in no way whatever supported by the written assent of certain bishops given, as you allege, 60 years ago [Constantinople I], and never brought to the knowledge of the Apostolic See by your predecessors; and this transaction, which from its outset was doomed to fall through and has now long done so, you now wish to bolster up by means that are too late and useless . . . .” Letter CVI.
To Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, in rebuke of his selfseeking.
Leo, the bishop, to Anatolius, the bishop. Schaff.
That is correct. It is well known that Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 3 of Constantinople I were not accepted by Rome at an ecumenical council until Florence. What is so amusing about this is that even the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized Rome’s rejection of Canon 28 at Chalcedon, and admitted that the counsel’s decrees would have to be approved by Rome.
“As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. – Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132.” philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm
It is an historical fact that Pope Leo only approved the first 27 canons of Chalcedon, and struck canon 28! [Seriously, no face palm emote available?]
Then you disagree with every other Orthodox writer I’ve ever encountered who hold to the Pentarchy form of ecumenism, of which Rome (having primacy of honor, after all) is a member. You can certainly disagree with your Orthodox brethren too, but your own peculiar interpretation of history it isn’t doing much to convince anybody here.
M
Montalban
Guest
I already dealt with this earlier too! Damasus gave the most tentative approval. But other popes did not regard it as ecumenical. Pope Leo said he’d never even heard of some of its canons (regarding promotion of Sees).
Then you don’t have a point.
Yes, I’m aware of that, therefore I don’t see your point
Thanks for agreeing with my point - that papal approval in the West didn’t come about till well after it had in the east.
You’ll have to be careful quoting PhilVaz he uses sources he doesn’t know anything about like E. Giles. I asked him who this guy he quoted was and he couldn’t give me any information.
Also, he’s great at selective quoting.
You need to make up your mind what argument you’re having then. You want to say that papal approval was necessary - then you cite examples where it wasn’t required - because the west hadn’t accepted those canons.
Your quote from the Patriarch (if I accept your interpretation of it) still shows that the council itself did not require papal approval - at best - assuming your interpretation - you have the patriarch writing embarrassed that the council went ahead and ignored the pope - but that the should have consulted him
(this also being for a council that was called against the pope’s wishes)
However despite the pope’s protests the east accepted this canon.
Where’s that leave you?
You also have the problem that Leo’s protest was only based on the raising of other Sees, not about his own ‘primacy’.
It’s well and good for you to suggest I deal with argument you claim others make.
- Status