Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[spina1953]

Hi Spina,
I see you are a member of the Secular Order of Discalced Carmelites I’m very famaliar with the Discalced Carmelites in the western province of the U.S. and I know a number of the priests in this province.
As to the question whether our Blessed Lady died or not before her assumption into heaven, I don’t know whether the Church has pronounced anything definitive on the matter one way or the other. The definition given by Pope Pius XII in 1950 is that Mary was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory after having completed the course of her earthly life.

The APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS where in Pope Pius XII
defined the dogma of the Assumption of our Blessed Mother does contain references from fathers and doctors of the Church where Mary was assumed into heaven after death.

Concerning the Feast of the Assumption, the Apostolic Constitution says: “They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.”

It quotes St John Damascene “It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death.”

It also quotes another ancient writer : “As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.”

And then in the Office of Readings from the Liturgy of the Hours for the Feast of the Assumption, some of the same texts I quoted above are in the second reading. The second reading is taken from the apostolic constitution MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS.

The CCC#966 refers to the Dormition of Mary from the Byzantine Liturgy, the Feast of the Dormition, August 15. From a quick google search, it appears to mean the Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Whether or not the falling asleep of Mary refers to her actually dying or not in the Byzantine Liturgy, I don’t know.

In Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, Richca

Hi Richca: Thanks for the thumbs up about my being OCDS. Also thanks for answering my question concerning Our Blessed Mother. I have read many of the gnostic gospels and while I am very wary of the contents and thinking, it was just my understanding that Our Lady might have been assumed body and soul while yet still alive. However, even if she died or was asleep, she being 1) the spouse of God the Father and the Mother of Jesus the Christ, 2 She is very much a very special person for God to have done this for her. Either way God did single her out for her to so special to God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Augustine City of God page-380

Chapter 13

As soon as our first parents had transgressed the commandment divive grace forsook them, and they were confronted with their own wickedness, thus they took fig leaves which was possibly the first that came to hand in their troubled state of mind, and they covered their shame, for though their members remained the same they had shame now and they had none before. They experienced a new motion of the flesh, which had become disobedient to them, in strict retribution of their own disobedience to God. For the soul reveling in its own liberty, and scorning to serve God, was self deprived of the command it had formally maintained over the body. And because it willfully had deserted its superior Lord, it no longer held its own inferior servant, neither could its hold the flesh subject as it would always had been able to do had it remained subject to God. Then the flesh began to lust against the spirit in which strife we are born, deriving from the first transgression a seed of death and bearing in our members, and in our vitiated nature, the contest, or the victory over death.

Chapter 14

For God the author of nature, not vice, created man upright, being of his own will corrupted and justly condemned, begot condemned and corrupted children. For we all were in that one man, who fell into sin by the women who was made from him before the sin. For not yet was the particular form created and distributed to us, in which we as individuals were to live, but already the seminal nature was therefrom which we were to be propagated; and this being vitiated by sin, and bound by the chains of death, and justly condemned, man could not be born of man in any other state. And thus from the bad use of free will, there originated the whole train of evil, with its concatenation of miseries, convoys the human race from its deprived origin, as from a corrupt root. on to the destruction of the second death, which has no end, and those only being accepted are freed by the grace of God.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Richca;11415691Hello frjohn,

CCC#85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."

I have to disagree with you there. One can study that Patristic consensus and the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils without being under the Pope. As an Orthodox Christian my first reference is to the the Holy Tradition of the Church as expressed by the consensus of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I agree in the importance of Holy Tradition, but do not believe that Holy Tradition is the exclusive property of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, I can find areas where the Roman Catholic Church has departed from Holy Tradition. Let me put it this way, the Protestants threw out Holy Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church accepted Holy Tradition, but added things like the papal claims that distorted Holy Tradition. If something was not taught in the ancient undivided Church and dogmatized by the Holy 7 Ecumenical Councils, I cannot accept it as an expression of Holy Tradition. Read the canons and decrees of the 7 Councils themselves and you will find that the pattern mandated by the 7 Councils is conciliarism, not papalism. Just telling me that I have to accept the papacy does not prove that I must accept the papacy, when I am able to read the Holy Fathers and the acts and decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and can see for myself that they are incomparable with the modern papal claims.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hi Spina,
I see you are a member of the Secular Order of Discalced Carmelites I’m very famaliar with the Discalced Carmelites in the western province of the U.S. and I know a number of the priests in this province.
As to the question whether our Blessed Lady died or not before her assumption into heaven, I don’t know whether the Church has pronounced anything definitive on the matter one way or the other. The definition given by Pope Pius XII in 1950 is that Mary was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory after having completed the course of her earthly life.

The APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS where in Pope Pius XII
defined the dogma of the Assumption of our Blessed Mother does contain references from fathers and doctors of the Church where Mary was assumed into heaven after death.

Concerning the Feast of the Assumption, the Apostolic Constitution says: “They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.”

It quotes St John Damascene “It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death.”

It also quotes another ancient writer : “As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.”

And then in the Office of Readings from the Liturgy of the Hours for the Feast of the Assumption, some of the same texts I quoted above are in the second reading. The second reading is taken from the apostolic constitution MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS.

The CCC#966 refers to the Dormition of Mary from the Byzantine Liturgy, the Feast of the Dormition, August 15. From a quick google search, it appears to mean the Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Whether or not the falling asleep of Mary refers to her actually dying or not in the Byzantine Liturgy, I don’t know.

In Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, Richca

The texts used by the Eastern Orthodox Church clearly state that Mary died. The Melkite Eastern Catholics and Byzantine Catholics use the same texts. Therefore since they are in Communion with Rome, it is obvious that belief that Mary actually died before she was assumed is not in contradiction with Catholic doctrine.
That her body was not subject to corruption does not mean that she did not die. There are Saints in the Eastern Orthodox Church whose bodies did not corrupt, but remain incorrupted to this day. Does not the Catholic Church have Saints whose bodies did not corrupt? I am quite sure that you do.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have to disagree with you there. One can study that Patristic consensus and the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils without being under the Pope

I’d say that’s a far stretch after the apocryphal of James and unconfirmed claims of non existing letters to even collaborate it.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I’d say that’s a far stretch after the apocryphal of James and unconfirmed claims of non existing letters to even collaborate it.

What is the apocryphal James? What are these non-existing letters? I only know of the Epistle of St. James that is included by both our Churches in the canon of the New Testament. I do not understand your point here.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

The texts used by the Eastern Orthodox Church clearly state that Mary died. The Melkite Eastern Catholics and Byzantine Catholics use the same texts. Therefore since they are in Communion with Rome, it is obvious that belief that Mary actually died before she was assumed is not in contradiction with Catholic doctrine.
That her body was not subject to corruption does not mean that she did not die. There are Saints in the Eastern Orthodox Church whose bodies did not corrupt, but remain incorrupted to this day. Does not the Catholic Church have Saints whose bodies did not corrupt? I am quite sure that you do.

Fr. John

We are not even sure “where” She died of if She did. Ephesus claims the Virgin Mary had spent her last days in the vicinity of Ephesus and that she had died there, And the mystics confirm it also.

We are sure She was assumed body and soul into Heaven. We would like to say where She died for sure, but that’s not a fact.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What is the apocryphal James? What are these non-existing letters? I only know of the Epistle of St. James that is included by both our Churches in the canon of the New Testament. I do not understand your point here.

Fr. John

Its what is used by St Maximus to collaborate the authenticity of his content along with no available reference or existing letters of the Fathers he makes claim to, In other words the entire context is built on a foundation of sand and promoted as the truth to his authenticity of the Dormition and surrounding facts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

 

[GaryTaylor]

“The Greek Orthodox Church’s belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation.** Among the Eastern Slavs, belief in the immaculate conception went undisturbed until the seventeenth century, when the Skrizhal (Book of Laws) appeared in Russia, and proposed what the Slavs considered the “novel” doctrine of the Greeks. The views proposed in the Skrizhal were branded as blasphemous, especially among the Staroviery (Old Believers), who maintained the ancient customs and beliefs, however small or inconsequential. This reaction confirms the ancient Byzantine and Slav tradition of the immaculate conception. Only after Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854 did opposition to the doctrine solidify among most Orthodox theologians.*** The Orthodox Church, however, has never made any definitive pronouncement on the matter. Its official position is rather a suspension of judgment than a true objection. When Patriarch Anthimos VII, for example, wrote his reply to Pope Leo XIII’s letter in 1895, and listed what he believed to be the errors of the Latins, he found no fault with their belief in the immaculate conception, but objected to the fact that the Pope had defined it.”

google.com/url?q=http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/more-on-the-immaculate-conception-in-eastern-orthodoxy/&sa=U&ei=Z5XIT7TXLYrk9ASb95mqDw&ved=0CB4QFjAD&sig2=8amiGu8GVGYVyeox3bPXUQ&usg=AFQjCNH1q8zSpZSik6IenDeeeJAMvAc1hQ

Is it the Incarnation as some would suggest? The Annunciation as some would suggest, sometime prior as some would suggest. Or is it as always agreed upon until promulgated at the IC?

 

[frjohnmorris]

We are not even sure “where” She died of if She did. Ephesus claims the Virgin Mary had spent her last days in the vicinity of Ephesus and that she had died there, And the mystics confirm it also.

We are sure She was assumed body and soul into Heaven. We would like to say where She died for sure, but that’s not a fact.

I thought that both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that Our Lady died in Jerusalem. There is an ancient Church in Jerusalem, which I believed is recognized by both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as the tomb of Mary.
The feast of the Assumption originated in the East The most ancient the tradition is that Mary died and was buried. However, when the Apostles opened the tomb three days after her death, the body was gone and the Apostles had a vision of her being assumed body and soul into Heaven just like her divine son. There is a parallel between the resurrection and ascension of Christ and Mary.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

There is an ancient Church in Jerusalem, which I believed is recognized by both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as the tomb of Mary.

Fr. John

There is, and there’s Her actual home is Ephesus and legacy of death. The Church has been researching the authenticity of Ephesus for some time now. They are silent but the past three Popes have personally visited. That’s why they remained silent on the death aspect I believe. They aren’t claiming She didn’t die, they don’t know where or if indeed.

 

[frjohnmorris]

There is, and there’s Her actual home is Ephesus and legacy of death. The Church has been researching the authenticity of Ephesus for some time now. They are silent but the past three Popes have personally visited. That’s why they remained silent on the death aspect I believe. They aren’t claiming She didn’t die, they don’t know where or if indeed.

There is no doubt that Our Lady lived in Ephesus. Our Lord asked St. John to take care of her. St. John was Bishop of Ephesus and took here there with him. However, there is also the tradition that before her death and assumption she went back to Jerusalem.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know about the no-doubt part. When you chase the references down that all these scholars make, I don’t see much before the 5th-AD with the suggestion that if it appeared in the 5th it must have dated earlier.

I see the existing writings of the Fathers most notable with Mary as elaborated on below is St Irenaeus, anyway lets look…

heiligenlexikon.de/CatholicEncyclopedia/Maria-Verehrung.html

bibleprobe.com/transitusmariae.htm

"In any case, the evidence of the Syriac manuscripts proved beyond all question that in the East before the end of the sixth century, and probably very much earlier, devotion to the Blessed Virgin had assumed all those developments which are usually associated with the later Middle Ages. In some manuscripts of the „Transitus Mariae” - dating from the late fifth century - we find mention of three annual feasts of the Blessed Virgin:

•one two days after the feast of the Nativity,

•another on the 15th day of Iyar, corresponding more or less to May, and

•a third on the 13th (or 15th) day of Ab (roughly August), which probably is the origin of our present feast of the Assumption."

…

What I assume is meant by the reference of Athanasius by St Maximus, is alluded to by Prof Pelikan “Mary Through the Centuries” He also mentions the above, thus the “Commemoration of Mary” or mneme in Greek which he dates to 5-AD. (similar to above link)

He “claims” Athanasius was aware and “obviously” referred to this, not the anniversary, death, dormition, but Her nativity which is meant as Her entry into heaven and later the Assumption of Mary. This is what Athanasius was referring to when he argued there would be no festival of the Theotokos if She had not played a part in salvation.

The part She played in salvation at least at this point was Her nativity of the Lord argued by the Saint.

If anyone has this elusive letter by St Athanasius I’d love to see it. Its one thing to allude to historic evidence in the period of St Maximus with the “he said confirmation” Its a little different in the past two decades.

Maybe, just maybe we are talking the Nativity of Mary in Jerusalem. Listen to the language I quoted above, (proved beyond all question that in the East before the end of the sixth century, and (PROBABLY) very much earlier,)

 

[GaryTaylor]

When its said probably earlier. We define how much earlier.

seetheholyland.net/church-of-the-dormition/

 

[Richca]

The texts used by the Eastern Orthodox Church clearly state that Mary died. The Melkite Eastern Catholics and Byzantine Catholics use the same texts. Therefore since they are in Communion with Rome, it is obvious that belief that Mary actually died before she was assumed is not in contradiction with Catholic doctrine.
That her body was not subject to corruption does not mean that she did not die. There are Saints in the Eastern Orthodox Church whose bodies did not corrupt, but remain incorrupted to this day. Does not the Catholic Church have Saints whose bodies did not corrupt? I am quite sure that you do.

Fr. John

Hi frjohn,
I am not disputing that the Melkite Eastern Catholics or Byzantine Catholics are in contradiction to Catholic doctrine if they believe that Mary actually died. Although I have not really studied the matter much concerning whether Mary actually died or not, I’m not aware of any definitive teaching of the Church on the matter. I believe it is permissable to hold either view, namely, that she died and that she didn’t die before her assumption into heaven. If I’m wrong about this, then somebody can correct me. In the apostolic constitution in which Pope Pius XII proclaimed Our Lady’s Assumption body and soul into heaven, it does have texts which refer to Our Lady’s death. These same texts can be found in the second reading of the Office of Readings in the Liturgy of the Hours. However, when Pope Pius XII defined the actual dogma in that same apostolic constitution, he said that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven after completing the course of her earthly life. So it appears that he didn’t define whether Mary actually died or not.

Yes, we have many saints whose bodies are incorrupt. St Bernadette of Soubirous whom Our Lady appeared to just four years after the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined is just one such saint. The faithful can go see it in Lourdes, France.

Richca

 

[GaryTaylor]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

“claims that are of dubious authenticity”

That said they serve a real purpose in the Tradition of the Church, not hard to see.

That said I think its a good example why the teaching authority is a blessing, and how we see areas defined, no different with the IC.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I believe in the teaching authority of the Church, but believe that teaching authority does not belong to one man, but belongs to the whole Church and is expressed through the Holy Scriptures, the consensus of the Fathers, our liturgical texts and various conciliar decisions.

Fr. John

 

[Richca]

Richca;11415691Hello frjohn,

CCC#85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."

I have to disagree with you there. One can study that Patristic consensus and the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils without being under the Pope. As an Orthodox Christian my first reference is to the the Holy Tradition of the Church as expressed by the consensus of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I agree in the importance of Holy Tradition, but do not believe that Holy Tradition is the exclusive property of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, I can find areas where the Roman Catholic Church has departed from Holy Tradition. Let me put it this way, the Protestants threw out Holy Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church accepted Holy Tradition, but added things like the papal claims that distorted Holy Tradition. If something was not taught in the ancient undivided Church and dogmatized by the Holy 7 Ecumenical Councils, I cannot accept it as an expression of Holy Tradition. Read the canons and decrees of the 7 Councils themselves and you will find that the pattern mandated by the 7 Councils is conciliarism, not papalism. Just telling me that I have to accept the papacy does not prove that I must accept the papacy, when I am able to read the Holy Fathers and the acts and decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and can see for myself that they are incomparable with the modern papal claims.

Fr. John

Hi frjohn,
It is an indisputable fact in the Holy Tradition of the Church that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St Peter upon whom Christ said he would build His Church and to whom He first gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven. As such, the Holy Tradition of the Church acknowledges St Peter as head of the apostles since Christ appointed him as such and his successor as head of the college of bishops, the successors of the apostles. This order among the episcopate is not something the Church invented but was instituted by Jesus Christ himself and it can be indisputably found in the Tradition of the early church. Many patristic sources can be cited in support of this Tradition of the Church. Indeed, one has only to read a book on the history of the early Christian Church to see this.

In the Decree of Damasus in which is found the Acts of the Council of Rome, A.D. 382, it says:
"we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever…”

Pope St Leo the Great in a letter to the Bishops of the province of Vienne, A.D. 445:
“But the Lord decided that the sacrament of this gift (salvation) should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. And He wanted His gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to seperate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery…”

It should be noted that though the Pope did not attend any of the 7 ecumencial councils himself, he sent legates to represent him, the council fathers always sought approval from the Pope for their decrees or at least through his legates. The Pope would confirm the acts of the councils only after he had received them and gone over them. Indeed, none of the 7 ecumenical councils would be considered ecumenical at all if the Pope had not confirmed them.

Also, I’m not telling you that you have to accept the papacy as if I’m trying to force the Catholic faith on you. The Catholic faith cannot be forced on anybody, it must be received freely with the help of the grace of God of course. I do find your claim that the Catholic Church has distorted Holy Tradition concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to be wholly unfounded in the Tradition of the early Church.

Richca

 

[Cavaradossi]

It should be noted that though the Pope did not attend any of the 7 ecumencial councils himself, he sent legates to represent him, the council fathers always sought approval from the Pope for their decrees or at least through his legates. The Pope would confirm the acts of the councils only after he had received them and gone over them. Indeed, none of the 7 ecumenical councils would be considered ecumenical at all if the Pope had not confirmed them.

Untrue. It is not known if there was a papal legate at Nicaea. At First Constantinople, there was no papal legate, and at Second Constantinople, the Pope refused to participate in the Council. The Fifth Ecumenical Council, in fact, knowing that the Pope refused to participate, nevertheless issued doctrinal canons, unlimited in their scope (i.e., effective upon the whole church).

 

[frjohnmorris]

In response to Richca

How many times do I have to write that the Eastern Orthodox Church has never denied the position of the Bishop of Rome as senior Bishop and leader of the Church. That is not the issue that divides us. We disagree on what that means and how much power and authority that gives to the Bishop of Rome. We uphold the conciliarism of the ancient undivided Church allowing for the Pope to act as senior Bishop acting as first among equals, and subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council that represents all the Bishops of the Church.
Many people on this discussion have cited Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles as proof that the ancient Church required all Bishops to recognized the supreme authority of the Pope. Although, I disagree and believe that the intention of this canon is identical to canon 9 of the Council of Antioch in 431 which clearly is intended to establish regional primacies not the universal authority of the Pope.
Canon 9 of Antioch in 431 states:
It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

However for the sake of argument I will accept the Roman Catholic position for a moment and agree that Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles requires all Bishops to accept papal authority. Therefore, let us look at the canon itself:
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

Notice that this canon does not give unlimited authority to the Primate, but requires that he must do nothing “ without the consent of all…” If this canon applies to the Pope, it also limits the authority of the Pope because it requires him to seek the consent of the other Bishops for anything that he does that effects the whole Church. Thus the canon if it applies to the Pope does not give him unlimited authority, but instead affirms the Orthodox concept of conciliarity.
Now, let us now look the 1st Vatican Concil to see if it remains faithful to Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles. ( Although it is a bit awkward, I have kept the format of the decrees themselves.)

At Vatican 1 the council declared:
Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
embraced by all the venerable fathers and
reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren
*
CONTINUED*