On the Universal Jurisdiction of the Papacy

[Rohzek]

George Demacopoulos is alive and well today. I’ve been asking for primary sources from the 1st Millennium. Seems like you don’t have any. As for Constantinople employing yet another power grab in the 6th Century by calling itself the “Ecumenical Patriarch” - that is exactly what we should be discussing. What did Constantinople base its claims to authority on, other than the political and military power of the Byzantine Empire?

It based its authority on the fact that Constantinople was the capitol of the Byzantine Empire. Do you know what ecumenical means? Once Rome was no longer the capitol, technically speaking by definition, the Bishop of Rome was no longer the ecumenical patriarchate.

And I’m surprised that you outright reject the expertise of historians who actually read Greek and Latin. Your sentiment reeks of anti-intellectualism.

That’s your 21st Century spin on 1st Milennium events. Quote someone from the 1st Millennium please.

You’re revealing a great amount of historical ignorance here. Diptychs were one of the primary means of communicating obedience and adherence to authority and fellowship. No Byzantine or medieval historian would agree with your casual disregard for the fact that the diptychs still kept the name of Acacius throughout the empire, despite papal and imperial orders.

Show me some primary sources, not some 21st Century apologist for Constantinople.

Why should I restrict myself to Constantinople? I don’t consider Constantinople to be a pseudo-papacy. How about you actually understand the Orthodox perspective before you attempt to argue against it?

Furthermore, I provided a primary source of the Frankish Church clearly rejecting II Nicaea in the direct presence of papal legates. Again, papal supremacy didn’t exist in the First Millennium. You seem to have ignored this point I made. Do you read Latin? If not, I’d be happy to translate the relevant passage for you.

Papal supremacy is as old as the Church itself. Didn’t you see my quote from the Council of Ephesus? Here’s another one from Chalcedon:

“We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out.”

I’ve already explained Ephesus. As for Chalcedon, Catholics are so accustomed to taking that out of context. They accepted Leo’s tome as orthodox and admitted that he was the first amongst equals. That’s all that proves. They then went ahead and rejected adopting the Tome as the official document of orthodoxy and then passed Canon 28 despite papal protest. This hardly constitutes proof of papal authority.

The Council of Frankfurt didn’t say anything about the authority of the Pope. Once again, you are applying post-schism Orthodox spin to 1st Millennium events. Again, show me any writings, anywhere, from anyone, in the 1st Millennium that respond to Rome’s 1st Millennium claims to be “the head of all churches,” that the “the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides” in Rome, and that the “communion of the Catholic Church” is those who “are in agreement with the Apostolic See.” 1st Millennium, primary sources only please.

Actually it says a lot. Again do you read Latin? I can translate it for you. They rejected an ecumenical council accepted by the pope in the presence of the papal legates even after being chastised for being wrong. The fact of the matter is that the pope did not have jurisdictional authority either in the Christian East let alone north of the Alps.

 

[Rohzek]

Yes, Pope Saint Gregory the Great himself acknowledged (in the 1st Millennium) the three Petrine Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch:

"For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. 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."

Note that Constantinople is not one of them. And Alexandria abandoned Constantinople in the 5th Century. And Antioch abandoned Constantinople in the 7th Century:

"The Patriarch of Antioch, Anastasius II died in 609, and Constantinople began to appoint a series of titular patriarchs, who resided not in Antioch but in Constantinople. In 685, the Maronites elected Bishop John Maron of Batroun as Patriarch of Antioch and all the East.[8] Through him, the Maronites of today claim full apostolic succession through the Patriarchal See of Antioch. While this installation of a patriarch was seen as a usurpation by the Orthodox hierarchy, John received the approval of Pope Sergius I, and became the first Maronite Patriarch of the oldest see in Christianity."

Neither Rome, nor Alexandria nor Antioch put up with Constantinople’s power grabbing schemes, and the Muslims soon put an end to the Byzantine Empire that was the sole basis for Constantinople’s claims to authority. In fact, Christians in Antioch and Alexandria joined the Muslims to fight against Constantinople. It baffles me that anyone today would continue to follow the claims of Constantinople when all the original apostolic sees abandoned Constantinople in the 1st Millennium.

There is this thing called Oriental Orthodoxy. It is different from Eastern Orthodoxy. Look it up champ. That’ll explain why those patriarchates of an entirely different branch of Christianity fought alongside the Muslims as you claim. There was and is both an EO and an OO patriarchate in Alexandrian and Antioch. As for Maronites, they have their own peculiar tradition. I don’t deny their legacy.

Furthermore, if you read the entirety of Pope Gregory the Great’s letter on the three petrine sees, you can see that he thinks that those three sees should be the highest in honor and equal with one another. Modern Catholicism does not permit Antioch and Alexandria to be equal in honor with Rome. newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

His ecclesiology contradicts yours.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Randy Carson;14428547]I came across the following in an article by Patrick Madrid, and I want to ask if these early quotes from the Church suggest an understanding of Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope.

Your thoughts will be much appreciated. Thanks!

One has to ascertain the difference between local jurisdiction and universal Jurisdiction. When viewing the historical church in her infancy stage to the present. From this perspective, we find the many bishops addressing local issues, at times, does not suffice a local (jurisdiction) synod outcome, when she has to address the Petrine apostolic see’s such as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and or Jerusalem during biblical times. Her goal here is to remain in full communion with the whole Church.

When ever we find local bishops or a synod of bishops exercising her keys to excommunicate a convicted heretical bishop, for example; We find the local synod of bishops decision seeking the full communion of the Apostolic see’s holding a universal Jurisdiction. Thus your post of letters reveal this fact.

These holding universal Jurisdiction over the local synod of bishops seeking full communion approval, are Jerusalem during biblical times when, St. Paul goes to Jerusalem to seek out Peter alone, to confer his gospel with Peter (Cephas) Gal.1:18, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria who carry with them the Petrine principle holding the full communion for all other (Church’s) to follow.

What is telling of this Universal Jurisdiction is confirmed by the Pagan Emperor in 268 a.d.
When a local synod of bishops excommunicated Paul of Samosata, [the bishop of Antioch.] The Antiochene synod of bishops wrote to Rome and Alexandria and THROUGH these latter apostolic see’s to the other bishops of the Universal Church to approve their synod new appointment (Domnus) to the bishop of Antioch, mainly to maintain full communion with the whole.

The local synod’s appointment could not legitimate Domnus by a synod alone. The Synod required Universal Jurisdiction to maintain the full apostolic communion.

Paul of Samosata, refused to return the houses of worship. The local bishops APPLIED to the Pagan Emperor Aurelian 268 a.d. The Pagan Emperor issued a DECREE that the buildings were to be handed over to “whom ever the bishops of Italy and the City of Rome would acknowledge as LAWFUL”. Thus Pagan Rome from antiquity, publicly recognizes the bishop of Rome having jurisdiction over the local synod and the Church of Antioch.

We have the beloved disciple of Jesus Christ who records from his own gospel (John 21;15-21) Jesus giving sole primacy to Peter to feed and tend His flock until Jesus returns.

When discussing Jurisdiction with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, due to their autocephalous Church understanding, we have to reveal when the local jurisdiction is being addressed compared to the Universal Jurisdiction that maintains the full communion for all other Church’s are to follow the Petrine principle. It would appear the Orthodox autocephalous approach can pose a conflict to a Universal Jurisdiction, except when it comes to the secular powers who accept the Jurisdiction rule over them at diverse times in history.

This thought is not to confuse those autocephalous Church’s who adhere to valid Church council decisions ratified by the bishops of Rome having jurisdiction over the whole Church.

Enclosing, let us not confuse local (autocephalous) Jurisdiction affecting communion with Universal Jurisdiction that affects the whole or universal communion.

My thoughts address a pre-Constantinople time period, when Constantinople did not exist with a bishop. A Post -Constantinople Patriarch reveals a rivalry to the see of Peter and other pre-existing apostolic Petrine See’s.

Peace be with you

 

[PluniaZ]

It based its authority on the fact that Constantinople was the capitol of the Byzantine Empire. Do you know what ecumenical means? Once Rome was no longer the capitol, technically speaking by definition, the Bishop of Rome was no longer the ecumenical patriarchate.

The Ecumene was the Greek word for the known world, and in the Roman Empire came to refer to the civilized world, and to correspond with imperial administration. The term “Ecumenical Patriarch” wasn’t used until the 6th Century, when it was applied for the first time to the bishop of Constantinople.

And I’m surprised that you outright reject the expertise of historians who actually read Greek and Latin. Your sentiment reeks of anti-intellectualism.

Please, there’s no need for personal attacks. A 21st Century Eastern Orthodox author of a book called “The Invention of Peter” has obvious bias, which is why I’ve been asking for primary sources this whole thread.

You’re revealing a great amount of historical ignorance here. Diptychs were one of the primary means of communicating obedience and adherence to authority and fellowship. No Byzantine or medieval historian would agree with your casual disregard for the fact that the diptychs still kept the name of Acacius throughout the empire, despite papal and imperial orders.

If you could provide the cities where Acacius and his followers remained in the diptychs, and where they didn’t (just say, the 3 biggest each), that would be helpful to understand the issue better.

Why should I restrict myself to Constantinople? I don’t consider Constantinople to be a pseudo-papacy. How about you actually understand the Orthodox perspective before you attempt to argue against it?

The “Eastern Orthodox” tradition that has survived until today is, practically speaking, the tradition of Constantinople. It is not the tradition of Antioch or Alexandria or Jerusalem. These cities either rejected Constantinople outright, or became irrelevant to churchwide discourse once they were conquered by the Muslims.

Furthermore, I provided a primary source of the Frankish Church clearly rejecting II Nicaea in the direct presence of papal legates. Again, papal supremacy didn’t exist in the First Millennium. You seem to have ignored this point I made. Do you read Latin? If not, I’d be happy to translate the relevant passage for you.

No, I don’t read Latin. Please provide a translation of the passage you think supports your claims.

I’ve already explained Ephesus. As for Chalcedon, Catholics are so accustomed to taking that out of context. They accepted Leo’s tome as orthodox and admitted that he was the first amongst equals. That’s all that proves. They then went ahead and rejected adopting the Tome as the official document of orthodoxy and then passed Canon 28 despite papal protest. This hardly constitutes proof of papal authority.

Why do you say that Leo’s Tome was rejected? Leo’s Tome was read aloud at Chalcedon, to which the bishops in attendance responded::

"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo."

Actually it says a lot. Again do you read Latin? I can translate it for you. They rejected an ecumenical council accepted by the pope in the presence of the papal legates even after being chastised for being wrong. The fact of the matter is that the pope did not have jurisdictional authority either in the Christian East let alone north of the Alps.

Please provide a translation of the relevant text.

 

[PluniaZ]

There is this thing called Oriental Orthodoxy. It is different from Eastern Orthodoxy. Look it up champ. That’ll explain why those patriarchates of an entirely different branch of Christianity fought alongside the Muslims as you claim. There was and is both an EO and an OO patriarchate in Alexandrian and Antioch. As for Maronites, they have their own peculiar tradition. I don’t deny their legacy.

I am familiar with Oriental Orthodoxy, there is no need to be pedantic. The point I am making is that Eastern Orthodoxy was not supported by a majority of those in the eastern church - almost no one in Antioch or Alexandria accepted Constantinople’s authority or doctrine. And Constantinople has no claim to Petrine succession, unlike Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, and didn’t claim to have any authority in the church until 381, over 300 years into the history of the church. And Constantinople fell for pretty much every Christological heresy in the First Millennium. So again, why would anyone follow the tradition of Constantinople?

Furthermore, if you read the entirety of Pope Gregory the Great’s letter on the three petrine sees, you can see that he thinks that those three sees should be the highest in honor and equal with one another. Modern Catholicism does not permit Antioch and Alexandria to be equal in honor with Rome. newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

His ecclesiology contradicts yours.

This is the only relevant quote I found in the letter - did you see something else?

"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. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established 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. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21."

Catholics are fine with acknowledging Rome, Alexandria and Antioch to together constitute one Apostolic See. From the time of the First Council of Nicea, Canon 6, it has been clear that Alexandria’s jurisdiction is limited to Egypt, and Antioch to its surrounding region, but that there are no jurisdictional limits on Rome. Such was the message of Pope Leo in his letters rejecting Canon 28 of Chalcedon, which letters all the Eastern bishops accepted when they signed the Formula of Hormisdas.

 

[Rohzek]

Part 1 of 2

I’ll address you concerns, PluniaZ, in no particular order.

First, George Demacopoulos is a well respected scholar, historian, and theologian in both Catholic and Orthodox circles. If you doubt the Catholic respectability, then do note that he is employed at Fordham University, a Jesuit institution. In addition, his book has received great reviews in the American Historical Review, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, and the Journal of Theological Studies. The only negative feedback I’ve seen on this book comes from the eminent Carolingian historian Thomas F. X. Noble, who has a variety of issues with the work, none of which necessarily correlate with any of those you yourself have articulated. In the end, discounting a book that has received positive reviews from within the academy and which is published by the University of Pennsylvania Press, all because the mere title injures your sensibilities does in fact reek of anti-intellectualism.

As for your constant Constantinople bashing, who cares? Honestly, the fact that you think the entire cultural legacy of the Eastern Orthodox Church boils down to Constantinople just goes to show the great extent of your own ignorance. I’ve more than once attempted to get to show you that your understanding of the Eastern churches is gravely mistaken, but it seems to me that you are far more interested in purposefully mischaracterizing your opponents. In which case, this will be my final set of responses to you. I honestly have no further interest in continuing this discussion with you, since as the saying goes, “it is useless to listen to those who will not listen to you.” I only type now for the sake of organizing my own final thoughts and for the enlightenment of any readers.

As for the Council of Frankfurt, the Latin and the translation is the following:

Allata est in medio questio de nova Grecorum synodo, quam de adorandis imaginibus Constantinopolim fecerunt, in qua scriptum habebatur, ut qui imagines sanctorum ita ut deificam trinitatem servitio aut adorationem non (name removed by moderator)enderent, anathema iudicaverunt: qui supra sanctissimi patres nostri omnimodis adorationem et servitutem rennuentes contempserunt atque consentientes condempnaverunt.

dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00000637_00179.html?sortIndex=020%3A040%3A0002%3A010%3A01%3A00&pageNo=165&zoom=1.25

Arriving upon then the complaint about the new Greek synod [II Nicaea], that made [a statement] about the adoration of images at Constantinople, where it was written that those who do not hang the images of the saints just as the Holy Trinity for either service or adoration are judged to be anathema. Concerning the above judgment our most holy fathers condemned in every way such adoration and service and condemned those agreeing with such.

Let me again state, they knew the papacy approved of II Nicaea. Secondly, they had previous correspondence with the papacy over II Nicaea. Thirdly, the papal legates were at this Frankish council. Despite all of that, the Franks still condemned II Nicaea. Ergo, rejected papal authority to determine their doctrinal stances and papal jurisdiction.

In terms of the Acacian Schism, yeah I can refer to you one bishopric that refused not only to removed the name of Acacius from the diptychs, but also refused to sign onto the Formula of Hormisdas. Believe it or not, there was actually good reason to believe that Acacius was not a heretic, but that’s an issue for another discussion. One resister is none other than the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, as well as the following bishoprics: Thessalonica and Tyre. These are just a few. And just to further note, since you are so fond of quoting Justinian to support your arguments, Justinian also said this about the Church of Jerusalem:

et Hierosolymitanam praecipue; cui tamen omnes favorem impendunt quasi matri Christiani nominis, ut nemo audeat ab ea sese discernere

And Jerusalem especially, to which everyone devotes favor as to the mother of the Christian name, which no one dares to separate from himself.

Emperor Justinian to Pope Homisdas, Patrologia Latina 63: 502D - 503A

He sent this to the pope, who obviously had no problem with it. The plain fact of the matter is the following: your insistence on this idea, that statements condemning separation of Rome support papal supremacy, is completely erroneous. I rest my case on the fact that other sees were given the same treatment in writing, as the letter to Jerusalem clearly indicates above. We aren’t reading about jurisdictional authorities here, we are reading about common etiquette in writing letters to those of high rank.

 

[Rohzek]

Part 2 of 2

Let me also add that the papacy deposed Bishop Dorotheus for disobeying his libellus/formula. Thessalonica at this time was under the Patriarchate of Rome, not Constantinople. A local council in Heraclea soon thereafter exonerated Dorotheus and reinstated him in his see. As for all of the information regarding Acacius and the formula here, please see John Meyendorff’s Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD 450-680, pages 194-220.

Allow me also to reiterate my arguments about Patriarch John II of Constantinople’s addition to Pope Hormisdas’ libellus/formula the words, “I declare that the see of the apostle Peter and the see of this imperial city are one.” Your interpretation of this matter as having no bearing on the equality of the sees of both Constantinople and Rome runs directly against John Meyendorff’s interpretation as well as the eminent and deceased Catholic historian Francis Dvornik. For Dvornik, see Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, 61-62. The fundamental fact of the matter is that John asserted Constantinople’s equality with Rome. Let me also add that Hormisdas’ formula did nothing more than assert the historical reality that Rome had been correct in doctrine for the past many decades. If Rome was asserting papal supremacy, as you claim, then Pope Hormisdas would not have used the past tense/perfect passive “has always been kept unsullied (quia in sede apostolica extra maculam semper
est catholica servata religio).” That it is not in the present tense indicates that Pope Hormisdas was not speaking of a timeless theological reality, but merely of the past historical record.

As for your insistence on Ephesus, I don’t find it convincing whatsoever. First off, it is an empirical fact that Rome was founded by both Peter and Paul. No Orthodox deny this fact. However, the Orthodox also point out that both Alexandria and Antioch were founded by Peter. In addition, the Orthodox Pope Gregory the Great acknowledged this point. It is abundantly clear that Gregory thinks in his Letter 40 (Book 7) that Petrine Sees, please note the plural, should supersede non-Petrine sees in authority and honor. History clearly did not play out in favor of such an ecclesiastical structure, but Gregory clearly articulated that the Petrine status of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome made them equal to one another.

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.

Please note the word “principality.” This qualification not only applies to Rome, but also to the three Petrine sees in totality. Furthermore, the Patriarchate of the West was a title that Rome itself used for centuries in addition to Eastern Patriarchates using such a term to label Rome. Don’t tell me that Rome had no jurisdictional limits. It clearly did, as is suggested by the very usage of the term in addition to the Council of Frankfurt.

And allow me to end with a reitteration. You never refuted my original points that I outlined clearly in my two previous blog posts that I linked. Those arguments listed above and again listed below clearly articulate that the keys of Peter and the powers of binding and loosing found in Matthew 16:18 were clearly understood by the vast majority of Latin Fathers of the First Millennium as one and the same. Ergo, the papal office simply did not exist as a theological necessity, as is currently dictated in modern Catholic theology. For the papal office to exist, the keys of Peter have to be separate from the powers of binding and loosing. However, the Latin Fathers thought of them as one and the same. For primary evidence and detailed argumentation, please once again see the links below:

Was Peter the Rock? Latin Exegesis Until the 12th Century AD

**
Upon this Rock: An Addendum**

 

[Jon_Mallory]

And how many times did Constantinople err?

Semi-Arianism:
Nestoriansim:
Monophysitism:
Monothelitism:
Iconoclasm:

Sounds like a real trustworthy see. You shall know them by their fruit …

Please, there’s no need for personal attacks. A 21st Century Eastern Orthodox author of a book called “The Invention of Peter” has obvious bias, which is why I’ve been asking for primary sources this whole thread.

 

[PluniaZ]

Part 1 of 2

First, George Demacopoulos is a well respected scholar, historian, and theologian in both Catholic and Orthodox circles. If you doubt the Catholic respectability, then do note that he is employed at Fordham University, a Jesuit institution. In addition, his book has received great reviews in the American Historical Review, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, and the Journal of Theological Studies. The only negative feedback I’ve seen on this book comes from the eminent Carolingian historian Thomas F. X. Noble, who has a variety of issues with the work, none of which necessarily correlate with any of those you yourself have articulated. In the end, discounting a book that has received positive reviews from within the academy and which is published by the University of Pennsylvania Press, all because the mere title injures your sensibilities does in fact reek of anti-intellectualism.

I have no doubt that Mr. Demacopoulos is a well respected academic scholar. But from everything you’ve posted, it seems that even he is not aware of a single statement by anyone in the First Millennium expressing any sort of limit on the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Despite the fact that Rome made no secret of its belief to be the ruler of all churches, which its legate expressly stated to representatives of the entire church at Chalcedon:

“Lucentius, the bishop, said: The Apostolic See gave orders that all things should be done in our presence. … But if not, let our opposition be placed in the minutes, and pray let us know clearly what we are to report to that most apostolic bishop who is the ruler of the whole church, so that he may be able to take action with regard to the indignity done to his See and to the setting at naught of the canons.”

Here the Papal legate claims, in front of bishops from the entire church, that the Roman Pontiff is “the ruler of the whole church.” Does anyone utter any disagreement? Does anyone gasp in horror at such a claim? Does the council object to this usurpation of authority in their subsequent letter to Pope Leo? No. Instead they acknowledge his authority:

“Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you.”

“Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting.”

Don’t you see my problem here? Everyone in the First Millennium is acknowledging the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. I can’t find a single statement by anyone in the First Millennium expressing any sort of doubt or reason for limiting the Roman Pontiff’s authority, but I am seeing many statements by well respected saints and bishops asserting his authority over the whole church. It is only subsequent scholars from the Second and Third Millennium who are raising any sort of doubt. But, knowing that God has blessed the Sacred Tradition of His Church, how can I throw out the earlier understanding of the Roman Pontiff, in favor of a subsequent revision?

As for your constant Constantinople bashing, who cares? Honestly, the fact that you think the entire cultural legacy of the Eastern Orthodox Church boils down to Constantinople just goes to show the great extent of your own ignorance. I’ve more than once attempted to get to show you that your understanding of the Eastern churches is gravely mistaken, but it seems to me that you are far more interested in purposefully mischaracterizing your opponents. In which case, this will be my final set of responses to you. I honestly have no further interest in continuing this discussion with you, since as the saying goes, “it is useless to listen to those who will not listen to you.” I only type now for the sake of organizing my own final thoughts and for the enlightenment of any readers.

I am sorry that my criticism of the actions of the church of Constantinople offends you. If my understanding of Eastern Orthodoxy - that it is based on the tradition of Constantinople - is wrong, please point me in the right direction. But if Eastern Orthodoxy is not based on the tradition of Constantinople, nor Rome, nor Alexandria, nor Antioch, nor Jerusalem - if it is not based on any of the 5 preeminent sees of the First Millennium - then what is its claim to being the true authentic Christian church?

 

[PluniaZ]

As for the Council of Frankfurt, the Latin and the translation is the following:

“Arriving upon then the complaint about the new Greek synod [II Nicaea], that made [a statement] about the adoration of images at Constantinople, where it was written that those who do not hang the images of the saints just as the Holy Trinity for either service or adoration are judged to be anathema. Concerning the above judgment our most holy fathers condemned in every way such adoration and service and condemned those agreeing with such.”

Let me again state, they knew the papacy approved of II Nicaea. Secondly, they had previous correspondence with the papacy over II Nicaea. Thirdly, the papal legates were at this Frankish council. Despite all of that, the Franks still condemned II Nicaea. Ergo, rejected papal authority to determine their doctrinal stances and papal jurisdiction.

Thank you for the translation. What I see here is a disagreement with the Second Council of Nicea, expressly stated by the Council of Frankfurt. I also see an inference from you that this is a rejection of papal authority. But if your inference is correct, why didn’t anyone expressly state it at the time? I could just as easily make the opposite inference, that the honor and authority of the Roman Pontiff were held in such high regard, that the Council of Frankfurt would condemn an ecumenical council of the church before uttering a word against His Holiness the Vicar of Christ. In any event, our inferences are just guesses, thousands of years removed from the event. The fact remains that the Council of Frankfurt didn’t say anything at all about the authority of the Pope.

In terms of the Acacian Schism, yeah I can refer to you one bishopric that refused not only to removed the name of Acacius from the diptychs, but also refused to sign onto the Formula of Hormisdas. Believe it or not, there was actually good reason to believe that Acacius was not a heretic, but that’s an issue for another discussion. One resister is none other than the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, as well as the following bishoprics: Thessalonica and Tyre.

That is interesting. But is it not also true that at least 200 bishops in the East signed on to the Formula of Hormisdas, including the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch? And is Wikipedia wrong that Aacius’ name was removed from the diptychs in Constantinople? And did any of the dissidents leave any writings challenging the authority of the Roman Pontiff to make such an audacious claim as the Formula of Hormisdas?

These are just a few. And just to further note, since you are so fond of quoting Justinian to support your arguments, Justinian also said this about the Church of Jerusalem:

“And Jerusalem especially, to which everyone devotes favor as to the mother of the Christian name, which no one dares to separate from himself.”

He sent this to the pope, who obviously had no problem with it.

Yes, the Church of Jerusalem certainly has a place of honor in the Church, as was acknowledged in Canon 7 of the First Council of Nicea. But even at First Nicea express limits were placed on the Church of Jerusalem, namely that it was next in honor after Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, and that its bishop was not accorded the status of Metropolitan. It is just these sort of express limits that I am not seeing expressed by anyone in the First Millennium with regard to the Bishop of Rome.

The plain fact of the matter is the following: your insistence on this idea, that statements condemning separation of Rome support papal supremacy, is completely erroneous. I rest my case on the fact that other sees were given the same treatment in writing, as the letter to Jerusalem clearly indicates above. We aren’t reading about jurisdictional authorities here, we are reading about common etiquette in writing letters to those of high rank

Of course all the ancient sees are written of with reverence by all the Christian faithful. But the writings of the First Millennium express limits with respect to all of the ancient sees - Alexandria’s authority is limited to Egypt, Antioch to its region, Jerusalem ranks lower in honor than both Alexandria and Antioch, Constantinople doesn’t assert its authority until much later, and for which it is sternly rebuked by the Holy Roman Pontiff.

Surely you see my point here … there is no one at all in the First Millennium expressing any sort of limit on the Bishop of Rome.

 

[PluniaZ]

Part 2 of 2

Let me also add that the papacy deposed Bishop Dorotheus for disobeying his libellus/formula. Thessalonica at this time was under the Patriarchate of Rome, not Constantinople. A local council in Heraclea soon thereafter exonerated Dorotheus and reinstated him in his see. As for all of the information regarding Acacius and the formula here, please see John Meyendorff’s Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church AD 450-680, pages 194-220.

Did the local council in Heraclea leave a written record arguing against the authority of the Roman Pontiff, which is available for us to read today?

Allow me also to reiterate my arguments about Patriarch John II of Constantinople’s addition to Pope Hormisdas’ libellus/formula the words, “I declare that the see of the apostle Peter and the see of this imperial city are one.” Your interpretation of this matter as having no bearing on the equality of the sees of both Constantinople and Rome runs directly against John Meyendorff’s interpretation as well as the eminent and deceased Catholic historian Francis Dvornik. For Dvornik, see Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, 61-62. The fundamental fact of the matter is that John asserted Constantinople’s equality with Rome.

Is there anyone from the First Millennium who expressed this view?

Let me also add that Hormisdas’ formula did nothing more than assert the historical reality that Rome had been correct in doctrine for the past many decades.

The Formula of Hormisdas expressed much more than that. It explicitly said:

“For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.”

“Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion.”

“And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides.”

“I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries.”

If Rome was asserting papal supremacy, as you claim, then Pope Hormisdas would not have used the past tense/perfect passive “has always been kept unsullied (quia in sede apostolica extra maculam semper
est catholica servata religio).” That it is not in the present tense indicates that Pope Hormisdas was not speaking of a timeless theological reality, but merely of the past historical record.

That is your inference. Did anyone in the First Millennium express this view?

As for your insistence on Ephesus, I don’t find it convincing whatsoever. First off, it is an empirical fact that Rome was founded by both Peter and Paul. No Orthodox deny this fact. However, the Orthodox also point out that both Alexandria and Antioch were founded by Peter. In addition, the Orthodox Pope Gregory the Great acknowledged this point. It is abundantly clear that Gregory thinks in his Letter 40 (Book 7) that Petrine Sees, please note the plural, should supersede non-Petrine sees in authority and honor. History clearly did not play out in favor of such an ecclesiastical structure, but Gregory clearly articulated that the Petrine status of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome made them equal to one another.

Gregory wrote, “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. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established 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.”

I don’t see anything here limiting the authority of the Bishop of Rome, nor changing the limits on the authority of Alexandria and Antioch that were expressed at First Nicea.

 

[PluniaZ]

Please note the word “principality.” This qualification not only applies to Rome, but also to the three Petrine sees in totality. Furthermore, the Patriarchate of the West was a title that Rome itself used for centuries in addition to Eastern Patriarchates using such a term to label Rome. Don’t tell me that Rome had no jurisdictional limits. It clearly did, as is suggested by the very usage of the term in addition to the Council of Frankfurt.

I’m not telling you. Pope Hadrian I is telling you, as he told the entire Church at the Seventh Ecumenical Council:

“If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and deeply fixed in the whole world.”

Did anyone at the council object? Or leave a written rebuttal, that you could share with us?

And allow me to end with a reitteration. You never refuted my original points that I outlined clearly in my two previous blog posts that I linked. Those arguments listed above and again listed below clearly articulate that the keys of Peter and the powers of binding and loosing found in Matthew 16:18 were clearly understood by the vast majority of Latin Fathers of the First Millennium as one and the same. Ergo, the papal office simply did not exist as a theological necessity, as is currently dictated in modern Catholic theology. For the papal office to exist, the keys of Peter have to be separate from the powers of binding and loosing. However, the Latin Fathers thought of them as one and the same. For primary evidence and detailed argumentation, please once again see the links below:

Was Peter the Rock? Latin Exegesis Until the 12th Century AD

**
Upon this Rock: An Addendum**

I read those links, and I didn’t see a single statement by anyone in the First Millennium expressing your view of the Bishop of Rome, or any diminished view at all, of the Bishop of Rome. If there is a passage I overlooked, please share it with me.

 

[LionHeart777]

Part 2 of 2

Allow me also to reiterate my arguments about Patriarch John II of Constantinople’s addition to Pope Hormisdas’ libellus/formula the words, “I declare that the see of the apostle Peter and the see of this imperial city are one.” Your interpretation of this matter as having no bearing on the equality of the sees of both Constantinople and Rome runs directly against John Meyendorff’s interpretation as well as the eminent and deceased Catholic historian Francis Dvornik. For Dvornik, see Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, 61-62. Paul.]

Hi Rohzek,

Would you mind clarifying what you think the late Fr. Dvornik is saying?

In addition, the Orthodox Pope Gregory the Great acknowledged this point. It is abundantly clear that Gregory thinks in his Letter 40 (Book 7) that Petrine Sees, please note the plural, should supersede non-Petrine sees in authority and honor. History clearly did not play out in favor of such an ecclesiastical structure, but Gregory clearly articulated that the Petrine status of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome made them equal to one another.

Are you saying that you believe that Pope St. Gregory I viewed all three Bishops as having equal authority within the Catholic Church?

 

[Rohzek]

Hi Rohzek,

Would you mind clarifying what you think the late Fr. Dvornik is saying?

Sure. Fr. Dvornik is saying that the patriarch of Constantinople asserted his equality with the patriarch of Rome in his response to Pope Hormisdas. Now Dvornik does believe the Libellus Hormisdae to be an articulation of papal primacy as he himself understands it. I don’t necessarily share that point of view for reasons I’ve already briefly stated above. But even if Dvornik is right about Hormisdas’ intentions, the scholarly consensus remains that Constantinople did not acknowledge this assertion of Hormisdas, let alone many other Eastern sees.

Are you saying that you believe that Pope St. Gregory I viewed all three Bishops as having equal authority within the Catholic Church?

By virtue of their Petrine foundations, yes. As to whether that translates into practical or economical matters of governance, well that is another question entirely. This distinction might be foreign to non-Orthodox, which is understandable. However, just posit for a moment the idea that all bishops are fundamentally equal, but for pragmatic and governance reasons, a more sophisticated and historically contingent hierarchy must be in place. This is the Orthodox understanding. And I am arguing that Pope Gregory is articulating a theological ideal that should at least be roughly (but not exactly) expressed in the rank of the sees. In other words, it’s plausible Gregory still thought Rome should be first, but it could not have been on the basis of Petrine status alone, since that was not exclusive to Rome and that he viewed all the Petrine sees as holding something unique to themselves as a single see. What I am attempting to argue here is that he clearly thought Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were superior in terms of theological necessity and that this should be reflected in economical relations as well. Therefore, elevating Constantinople above any Petrine see was not acceptable in his eyes. At the same time, the ranks between Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria were not theologically determined. Ergo, if he thought Rome should be first before Antioch and Alexandria, he thought so out of fiat, not theological grounds. These are my contentions and qualifications.

 

[LionHeart777]

Sure. Fr. Dvornik is saying that the patriarch of Constantinople asserted his equality with the patriarch of Rome in his response to Pope Hormisdas. Now Dvornik does believe the Libellus Hormisdae to be an articulation of papal primacy as he himself understands it. I don’t necessarily share that point of view for reasons I’ve already briefly stated above. But even if Dvornik is right about Hormisdas’ intentions, the scholarly consensus remains that Constantinople did not acknowledge this assertion of Hormisdas, let alone many other Eastern sees.

Thanks for clarifying. I have this book (I enjoyed it) and went and took a look and I do see what you are saying to a certain extent at least. I think the point he has been making in this work (if memory serves) is that there were two simultaneous concepts going on in the Church with regards to how Sees were viewed: 1.) Apostolic origin (his second chapter is on apostolicity) and 2.) Prominence in the Empire (accommodation - the topic of his first chapter.)

I remember him arguing that the East typically focused on the latter, while the West focused on the former. Now coming to pages 61-62 which you referenced, he is discussing the Acacian Schism, and I think he sees the signing of Hormisdas’ formula by the Bishop of Constantinople as sort of an important moment in the East coming to terms with # 1 above. Dvornik writes, immediately after John’s words: “We are here in the presence of one of the first efforts, made by a Patriarch of Constantinople, to reconcile the two principles, that of the apostolicity of a see and the accommodation to political divisions of the Empire.” (Dvornik, Francis, “Byzantium and the Roman Primacy”, Fordham University Press, New York: 1966. Pg. 61)

Dvornik does say that: “These words [Dvornik just quoted the “Libellus Hormisdae”] were selected with the deliberate intention of instructing the Byzantine prelates, and therefore it is not at all surprising that the Patriarch John asked permission to precede his acceptance with a preface in which he attempted to place the see of Constantinople on the same level as that of Rome…” (Ibid.)

At this point, I cannot agree with your assertion that “the scholarly consensus remains that Constantinople did not acknowledge this assertion of Hormisdas”, as I seem to remember reading scholars who have claimed otherwise (Rev. S. Herbert Scott, an Anglican, comes to mind for example, and I am sure I could cite other Catholic scholars.) I guess we would have to define what you mean by “scholarly consensus”, and how one proves that to be so.

 

[LionHeart777]

By virtue of their Petrine foundations, yes. As to whether that translates into practical or economical matters of governance, well that is another question entirely. This distinction might be foreign to non-Orthodox, which is understandable. However, just posit for a moment the idea that all bishops are fundamentally equal, but for pragmatic and governance reasons, a more sophisticated and historically contingent hierarchy must be in place. This is the Orthodox understanding. And I am arguing that Pope Gregory is articulating a theological ideal that should at least be roughly (but not exactly) expressed in the rank of the sees. In other words, it’s plausible Gregory still thought Rome should be first, but it could not have been on the basis of Petrine status alone, since that was not exclusive to Rome and that he viewed all the Petrine sees as holding something unique to themselves as a single see. What I am attempting to argue here is that he clearly thought Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were superior in terms of theological necessity and that this should be reflected in economical relations as well. Therefore, elevating Constantinople above any Petrine see was not acceptable in his eyes. At the same time, the ranks between Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria were not theologically determined. Ergo, if he thought Rome should be first before Antioch and Alexandria, he thought so out of fiat, not theological grounds. These are my contentions and qualifications.

With regards to Pope St. Gregory, I can’t agree that he viewed all three Petrine Sees as equal, but he obviously exalted Antioch and Alexandria for the reason that they were Petrine Sees. I see his words and/or actions elsewhere as him very much being aware that he held a universal jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. I would argue that his predecessors were, as evidenced again by their words and/ or actions, and most notably (off the top of my head): Popes St. Stephen, Damasus, Galasius, and Leo. I would argue that Pope St. Leo I very much saw himself as possessing a universal jurisdiction. For example, I think the reason why in the debates between Anglicans and Catholics ca. 1900, the period debated was the first century till about Chalcedon, as they conceded that the Popes after that time did claim for themselves what Catholics claim they do. I can recall another work by an Evangelical scholar, Dr. Bruce Shelley (“Church History in Plain Language”), where he starts out with Pope St. Leo as the first Pope (according to him.)

Or consider the words of the Russian Orthodox church historian V.V. Bolotov on Pope St. Leo I:

“‘This primatus, this principatus, of the apostle Peter is not a temporary but permanent institution. He governs the Church visibly through his successor. The relation borne by Roman bishops to St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles, is a close reproduction, in its depths and in all it involves, of the consortium potentiae of St. Peter with Christ… In the same way the whole construction of the Church reproduces, according to Leo the Great, the diversity of the relations that existed between the Apostles. Though all were chosen equally, there was not equality of authority amongst them; so in the same way the Bishops, equal amongst themselves in sacerdotal dignity, are not so in canonical rights, nor are they equal in their participation in the Government of the Church. This administration over all the Churches is incumbent upon the Bishop of Rome [principally, by divine right]… The episcopatus universalis [universal bishopric] of the sovereign pontiff of Rome, as taught by St. Leo the Great, does not exclude the equality of hierarchy, that is to say, the sacramental equality of all bishops but only the plenitudo potestatis [the fullness of power]…It could never become neccessary to condemn a Bishop of Rome; he might have his shortcomings but they are compensated for and rectified by the merits of Peter. A Roman Pontiff can never really fail in any serious degree.’”

Source: “The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy”, by James Likoudis, published by (?) St. Martin de Porres Lay Dominican Community, New Hope, KY: 2002. Pgs. 67-70.

In any event, I cannot accept that Pope St. Gregory I, held a fundamentally different view of his office than his predecessor Pope St. Leo I.

 

[Rohzek]

Thanks for clarifying. I have this book (I enjoyed it) and went and took a look and I do see what you are saying to a certain extent at least. I think the point he has been making in this work (if memory serves) is that there were two simultaneous concepts going on in the Church with regards to how Sees were viewed: 1.) Apostolic origin (his second chapter is on apostolicity) and 2.) Prominence in the Empire (accommodation - the topic of his first chapter.)

Yes, that is the main line of his argument.

I remember him arguing that the East typically focused on the latter, while the West focused on the former. Now coming to pages 61-62 which you referenced, he is discussing the Acacian Schism, and I think he sees the signing of Hormisdas’ formula by the Bishop of Constantinople as sort of an important moment in the East coming to terms with # 1 above. Dvornik writes, immediately after John’s words: “We are here in the presence of one of the first efforts, made by a Patriarch of Constantinople, to reconcile the two principles, that of the apostolicity of a see and the accommodation to political divisions of the Empire.” (Dvornik, Francis, “Byzantium and the Roman Primacy”, Fordham University Press, New York: 1966. Pg. 61)

Dvornik does say that: “These words [Dvornik just quoted the “Libellus Hormisdae”] were selected with the deliberate intention of instructing the Byzantine prelates, and therefore it is not at all surprising that the Patriarch John asked permission to precede his acceptance with a preface in which he attempted to place the see of Constantinople on the same level as that of Rome…” (Ibid.)

At this point, I cannot agree with your assertion that “the scholarly consensus remains that Constantinople did not acknowledge this assertion of Hormisdas”, as I seem to remember reading scholars who have claimed otherwise (Rev. S. Herbert Scott, an Anglican, comes to mind for example, and I am sure I could cite other Catholic scholars.) I guess we would have to define what you mean by “scholarly consensus”, and how one proves that to be so.

I haven’t heard of those other scholars that you’ve mentioned, so it could be that I am simply in error in assessing the scholarly consensus. This general position is merely something I’ve observed in Dvornik, Meyendorff, and elsewhere. If it isn’t too much trouble, could you please give the name of the book or some sort of citation when you get the chance of these works you speak of? I’d be interested in seeing how they interpret the new titles and apostolic origin stories of Constantinople in the aftermath of this incident.

 

[Rohzek]

With regards to Pope St. Gregory, I can’t agree that he viewed all three Petrine Sees as equal, but he obviously exalted Antioch and Alexandria for the reason that they were Petrine Sees. I see his words and/or actions elsewhere as him very much being aware that he held a universal jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. I would argue that his predecessors were, as evidenced again by their words and/ or actions, and most notably (off the top of my head): Popes St. Stephen, Damasus, Galasius, and Leo. I would argue that Pope St. Leo I very much saw himself as possessing a universal jurisdiction. For example, I think the reason why in the debates between Anglicans and Catholics ca. 1900, the period debated was the first century till about Chalcedon, as they conceded that the Popes after that time did claim for themselves what Catholics claim they do. I can recall another work by an Evangelical scholar, Dr. Bruce Shelley (“Church History in Plain Language”), where he starts out with Pope St. Leo as the first Pope (according to him.)

Or consider the words of the Russian Orthodox church historian V.V. Bolotov on Pope St. Leo I:

“‘This primatus, this principatus, of the apostle Peter is not a temporary but permanent institution. He governs the Church visibly through his successor. The relation borne by Roman bishops to St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles, is a close reproduction, in its depths and in all it involves, of the consortium potentiae of St. Peter with Christ… In the same way the whole construction of the Church reproduces, according to Leo the Great, the diversity of the relations that existed between the Apostles. Though all were chosen equally, there was not equality of authority amongst them; so in the same way the Bishops, equal amongst themselves in sacerdotal dignity, are not so in canonical rights, nor are they equal in their participation in the Government of the Church. This administration over all the Churches is incumbent upon the Bishop of Rome [principally, by divine right]… The episcopatus universalis [universal bishopric] of the sovereign pontiff of Rome, as taught by St. Leo the Great, does not exclude the equality of hierarchy, that is to say, the sacramental equality of all bishops but only the plenitudo potestatis [the fullness of power]…It could never become neccessary to condemn a Bishop of Rome; he might have his shortcomings but they are compensated for and rectified by the merits of Peter. A Roman Pontiff can never really fail in any serious degree.’”

Source: “The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy”, by James Likoudis, published by (?) St. Martin de Porres Lay Dominican Community, New Hope, KY: 2002. Pgs. 67-70.

In any event, I cannot accept that Pope St. Gregory I, held a fundamentally different view of his office than his predecessor Pope St. Leo I.

I agree with the fact that Pope Leo the Great articulated a clear Catholic ecclesiology. Afterall, his words are cited in Lumen Gentium as a justification for the office. All that being said, I don’t think the often cited Epistula 40 is evidence for Gregory’s supposed Catholic views on ecclesiology. In my eyes, they seem to say nothing of the sort if not run against that notion. I’d be interested in seeing what other evidence there is for this assertion, if there is any.

I’d certainly be interested in discussing Pope Gelasius, but I think it best to first finish discussing Pope Gregory.

Also, do you have a direct citation of Bolotov rather than an indirect one through James Likoudis?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

And how many times did Constantinople err?

Semi-Arianism:
Nestoriansim:
Monophysitism:
Monothelitism:
Iconoclasm:

Sounds like a real trustworthy see. You shall know them by their fruit …

George Demacopoulos is alive and well today. I’ve been asking for primary sources from the 1st Millennium. Seems like you don’t have any. As for Constantinople employing yet another power grab in the 6th Century by calling itself the “Ecumenical Patriarch” - that is exactly what we should be discussing. What did Constantinople base its claims to authority on, other than the political and military power of the Byzantine Empire?

That’s your 21st Century spin on 1st Milennium events. Quote someone from the 1st Millennium please. 1st Millennium, primary sources only please.

 

[LionHeart777]

I haven’t heard of those other scholars that you’ve mentioned, so it could be that I am simply in error in assessing the scholarly consensus. This general position is merely something I’ve observed in Dvornik, Meyendorff, and elsewhere. If it isn’t too much trouble, could you please give the name of the book or some sort of citation when you get the chance of these works you speak of? I’d be interested in seeing how they interpret the new titles and apostolic origin stories of Constantinople in the aftermath of this incident.

I just mentioned the one, S. Herbert Scott (Anglican from ca. 1900), and he is the only one who I can remember that may have commented on the Patriarch John’s words. The book I have is “Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, which is out of print; I have it boxed up in the basement somewhere from a move and I will try to dig it out here sooner than later. This might have actually been a doctoral dissertation from him, can’t remember. Sorry, and sorry to mislead you there.