Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;10923027]I am not talking about the behavior of past popes here. I am saying that your attempt to reject what you see as “post-Constantinople” Christianity as being some sort of proto-heretical forerunner to the rejection of Rome’s claims of supreme jurisdiction are untenable

.
Post Constantinople is no different than when the Church uses the term post- NIcene, ante-Nicene or pre-Nicene.

**During the ante-Nicene period of the Church, you have the ECF’s addressing the Church of Rome as pre-eminent. The disposition of these ante-Nicene Fathers’ reveal them holding the Church of Rome and the Popes as holding “supreme authority”.
**
We cannot neglect the fact that the Church was never imperalized by the Emperors during the ant-Nicene period but in fact the Church of Rome was persecuted and the first 30+ popes were all martyred.

**Post-Nicene we find the Church imperalized by the Roman Emperors. Thanks to the Eastern historian Eusibius bishop of Ceasarea who saw this union as being the Church’s utopia of peace has finally arrived. Eusibius’s antiquarian collection of this history saw in them the unity of Church and Empire finally realized. That this sentiment was carried over into the Eastern Church’s as having an Emperor “pontifex maximus”.

Eusibius’s theology had shaped Christianities new circumstances of the Emperors being Christianized, set a course to even abandoning some of its traditional themes. For example; Pre-Nicene period Christiants saw it difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God. Not Eusibius, beginning with Constantine, riches and pomp came to be seen as signs of divine favor. The Monastics protested to seclusion, some bishops even left their apostolic sees when they saw Eusibius utopia coming to realization.

It is not until Post -Nicene that Eusibius’s theology came to be realized that the apostolic church under persecution became the Imperial Church of the powerful. Eusibius saw the great church’s begin built and funded by the Emperor’s and rejoiced and came to realize that the Church was fulfilled.

Thus we have two historical distinct dispositions of the Church. Ante Nicene purely apostolic and Peter in the Popes being held in “supreme” authority without question. Post-Nicene we have the Imperial Church now reaching to displace the authority of the Popes in the Roman Church or wishing to have equal authority as the Popes in Rome.
**

You cannot reject the evidence from that entire era because the papacy itself was willing to operate within that ecclesio-political world.

Not the entire post-Nicene (post-Constantinople) period. When the empire had a Catholic ruling the whole church found themselves in peace and in full union with the Popes. When the Emperors’ were schismatics, pagans, drunkards, and appointing lay persons over bishops, we find the post-Nicene Church in division of authority.

**One cannot deny the fact that all Emperor’s Christian or heretic recognized the authority of the Pope’s, and appealed to the Pope’s for ratification of all Council’s findings.
**

If what you are attempting to push were actually true, then the papacy should have rejected it outright and refused to operate under the ecclesio-political of “post-Constantinople” Christianity. That they did not indicates that they did not regard it as illegitimate.

It is easy for you to assume your position from afar (centuries later), but if you lived in the immediate present of Post-Constantinople which brought on a whole new set of circumstances into the Church. We find the Pope’s cooperating with the Emperor’s to keep the peace, as he does later in the West.

In summary history proves ante-Nicene (pre-Constantinople) the ECF’s never refuted the authority of the Popes of Rome. Post-Nicene we enter an imperial Church from the new capital Constantinople when the Emperors are laxed the Patriarch’s are far reaching to gain the authority of Rome or at least be equal to the Pope’s authority from Rome.

The robbers council of 449 in Ephesus proves this, and the rejection of Canon 28 from the council of Chalcedon by Pope Leo, who rejected the Patriarch of Constantinople’s reach for sole primacy in the East over the other Church’s.

**Let us not forget it was Pope Leo who got both Emperor’s to call the council of Chalcedon in 451 where Pope Leo’s Tome was finally accepted by all the Church’s.

It was from the Acts of this Council of Chalcedon, session 2 (A.D 451) which exclaimed in unity “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 THRU LEO!..this is the true faith!”
**
What is significant is that it is not until post-Nicene we have a new Patriarch and a new Capital vie-ing for power under the non-Catholic Emperor’s.

Orthodox have agreed here that the Pope’s possess a certain primacy when faced with the facts that prove it. But reject the primacy of Peter from Vatican I. Never mind Vatican I, why have the Orthodox rejected the Pope’s primacy from 1054 a.d? Answer this question, then we can graduate to Vatican I.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

jimmy;10922126]Infallibility is negative in as much as it is a gaurantee against error. It is a gaurantee that there will be no error in any statements spoken ex cathedra. There is no gaurantee that the best words will be used. But even in that there is a positive sense because in as much as it is guaranteed to be error free, it is guaranteed to offer a positive assertion of truth.

That is your personal defintion of infallibility; It is never the Catholic definition of infallibility when she defines infallibility is a negative protection.

God is the author of inspired utterances. He is not the author of papal definitions, but God guarantees them from against error.

Papal infallibility is always a negative protection (never a postitive) A pope might make a mistake as a private theologian; We believers are confident God will take care that he does not commit the whole church to it,and that God will not allow a certain thing to happen; To add any more to this such as your positive opinion departs from the Church’s definition of infallibility.

But my main point in speaking of it as a positive charism was that it can be invoked, and it is associated with the positive development of tradition. The pope can actually define a doctrine and make it a dogma.

What you assert to in regards to infallibility is false; The pope can never make or invent a doctrine or dogma.

The pope under infallibility has no power to make new revelations. The Pope can only disclose what is already known by divine revelation, never from what is unknown. You are changing infallibility again here.

The apostles recieved the whole Christian divine revelation. The Pope under infallibility, has the divine authority given to him in the keys, can explain these already divine revelations without adding anything to them. The Pope only guard, expound, explain, defend or define a doctrine.

Are you denying papal infallibility? Have you read what Vatican I said about it? The pope posesses a personal charism of infallibility that is associated with his office. That is the point of the VI definition.

I don’t deny papal infallibility the way the Church defines it, I deny your papal infallibility which is never taught by the Catholic Church.

Yes I have read the Vatican I documents of infallibility. The charism to which you refer too, is that which Jesus bestowed upon Peter. When the Pope speaks ex-cathedra (from the chair of Peter), on doctrines of faith and morals, these are not true because the Pope teaches them to be true, the Pope teaches them because they are true. These are true even if the Pope had not spoken thus. Many times this is how the “Earth” (world) has come to know of Jesus teachings through past, present and future generations, who’s languages never heard the gospel.

The Pope himself is never infallible in the sense of being impeccable.

Papal infallibility is but one charism of the Church. The college of bishops united to the popes possess a character of infallibility from their teaching office as one. Your sacramental baptism has a charism of infallbility because it is Jesus Himself who baptizes.

Where do you get this idea that the Pope’s invoke this “positive charism” of infallibility? It is never a Catholic teaching of infallibility. The Charism is derived from Jesus Christ who has endowed the Shepherd’s of His flock with it, to be exercised on faith and morals and it takes on different forms.

Papal infallibility does not take away the divine authority given to his fellow bishops.

 

[josie_L]

I think the argument wasn’t about having more than one baptism, but whether baptisms by heretics and schismatics are valid, that is, are they really baptisms in the first place? **This issue is still being contested today in the Orthodox Church. ** Remember we have Scriptural support here where St. Paul “rebaptized” a bunch of guys who were baptized not by Baptism into Christ, but by John’s (the Baptist) baptism. So the argument here is, are baptisms by heretics and schismatics the same true baptism of those within the Church?

So will the Orthodox hold an ecumenical council to resolve this issue once and for all?

p.s. I don’t believe that is scriptural support as the baptism performed by John was not done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (as Jesus himself stated to the apostles when he asked them to baptize).

 

[steve_b]

Of course. Such order did not exist in the earlier Church. If you look at the canons of the First Ecumenical Council, they were just building up the Metropolitan of Alexandria, similar to how the Metropolitan of Rome was structured. At this point there were no Patriarchs.

Before the patriarchal system there IS the chair of Peter… in Rome. During apostolic times the chair of Peter is already settling sedition in Corinth between their bishops. St John is still alive and living much closer to Corinth than Clement over in Rome.
C:

Surely there have been many developments in ecclesiology. But the biggest contention from the East is that none of them were ever divinely ordained.

THAT contension is opposed to Jesus plan He already established. Jesus made Peter head of the Church on earth. Jesus set up that hierarchy. It won;'t change. Peter is the leader of the Church on earth…till the end of time. It’s a losing battle for those who die fighting agaist this.
C:

They all developed through time as a necessity of governance, not of the faith.

On the contrary Peter as leader of the Church on earth IS the way Jesus established governance. In and of itself, that’s not a development. As the Church grew, style developes, but not the core of the government.

examples:

Lk 22:26
26 the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules(ἡγέομαιhegeomai) like the one who serves.

That’s talking about one of THEM.

• ἡγέομαι *hēgeomai [Lk 22:26] *(Jesus is referring to Simon)

Definition:

• 1) to lead
• a) to go before
• b) to be a leader
• 1) to rule, command
• 2) to have authority over
• 3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
• 4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
• 5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman

ποιμαίνω poimainō [Jn 21:16] “feed, tend, feed my sheep”
Definition
1) to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
a) to rule, govern
1) of rulers
2) to furnish pasture for food
3) to nourish
4) to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
5) to supply the requisites for the soul’s need
*Add up all the underlined terms that describe Peter’s role. *

He is to lead, rule, govern, command, controlling in councils, overseer of the leaders of the Churches, chief spokesman, etc etc

:coffeeread: that describes the beginning of the papacy for Peter. And Jesus established it. No council, no vote, established Peter’s position…It was Jesus. And it will be here till the end of time…guranteed! Those who disagree with this, aren’t disagreeing with me, I’m just quoting Jesus.

 

[josie_L]

*:coffeeread: that describes the beginning of the papacy for Peter. And Jesus established it. ** No council, no vote, established Peter’s position…It was Jesus. And it will be here till the end of time…guranteed! *** Those who disagree with this, aren’t disagreeing with me, I’m just quoting Jesus.

 

[Nine_Two]

Hi all. After my last post, about a week ago, I got busy with over things and didn’t catch up on this thread until this morning. Let me tell, it provides and interesting perspective
http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/confused/confused0054.gif
Seriously, other than exercising busybodyism (and exercising our finger and eye muscles of course) what are we doing? I’m starting to think that many of us need professional help, or at least a variation of AA. (See also.)

You have a point, but at the same time this is a much more friendly conversation than they often are.

 

[Nine_Two]

So will the Orthodox hold an ecumenical council to resolve this issue once and for all?

p.s. I don’t believe that is scriptural support as the baptism performed by John was not done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (as Jesus himself stated to the apostles when he asked them to baptize).

There have been several councils that have declared on the matter, although none or considered ecumenical.

 

[Peter_J]

My name is Constantine and I am a CAF addict.

Hi Constantine.

P.S. I didn’t want to say it, but yes I think you are a CAF addict (worse than me ).

 

[EIF5A]

Hi Constantine.

P.S. I didn’t want to say it, but yes I think you are a CAF addict (worse than me ).

Are you guys over at the Orthodox forum as well? Peter J, your name and icon are identical to one fellow’s at OC.net…I assume that’s you…(sorry if you wanted to keep that a secret.)

 

[Peter_J]

Are you guys over at the Orthodox forum as well? Peter J, your name and icon are identical to one fellow’s at OC.net…I assume that’s you…(sorry if you wanted to keep that a secret.)

Oh that’s fine. shaw: I figure by using that same “Jericho” picture in the various forums, it’s less confusing for people.

 

[EIF5A]

Oh that’s fine. shaw: I figure by using that same “Jericho” picture in the various forums, it’s less confusing for people.

Ah, everything makes sense now. I was wondering what those people in the picture were doing — they’re walking around the city seven times.

I’m the person pestering Orthodox people with questions about possibly converting.

It’s strange how different the answers are regarding primacy of Peter…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are you guys over at the Orthodox forum as well? Peter J, your name and icon are identical to one fellow’s at OC.net…I assume that’s you…(sorry if you wanted to keep that a secret.)

I used to be there.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So will the Orthodox hold an ecumenical council to resolve this issue once and for all?

p.s. I don’t believe that is scriptural support as the baptism performed by John was not done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (as Jesus himself stated to the apostles when he asked them to baptize).

I believe it was the First Ecumenical Council that said what are we to do with baptisms done by heretics and schismatics. But the interpretation still varies. Our heretics and schismatics today aren’t the same heretics and schismatics in the past, so there will always be an ongoing argument as the heterodox continue to evolve their doctrines.

 

[LionHeart777]

It is just that, attributed to Pope St. Damasus. We don’t actually know who wrote it. What good is such evidence when we cannot even establish whether it is genuine, especially given the prevalence of fakes like the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore? Even if it were true that Pope Damasus believed in this, along with his whole Roman synod, such a decree was never approved of, nor enacted by any of the Ecumenical Councils, nor received into canon law.

Here, I’ll give you what the Patristics scholar Jurgens says about the third section of “The Decree of Damasus” from where that citation comes:

“In regard to the third part…opinion is still divided. C.H. Turner’s work failed to convince everyone, and while little has been written on the subject in most recent years, it must be pointed out that some still prefer to regard this part three as pertaining peculiarly to the Gelasian Decree, and in no way to the Decree of Damasus. We ourselves are satisfied by its manuscript attributions to Damasus, and by what seems to be strong internal evidence in favor of authenticity. Certainly, the explicit statement that Rome’s primacy is not based upon conciliar concession from other Churches would seem to be Damasus’ answer to Canon 3 of First Constantinople…” (Jurgens, Williams A. “The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1”, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pg. 404)

*A correction of my post which contains the citation in question, it was from: Ibid. page 406

So, I take it as authentic but realize that there is not consensus amongst the scholars on it. When then may I ask do you attribute Rome’s or any other particular Church’s belief in the Divine Origin of the Papacy? (To, me the citation you gave by Bishop Firmilian indicates at least Pope St. Stephen’s belief in it.)

I mean commemorating the Pope during the liturgy, as in mentioning him in the prayer for the hierarchy during the anaphora. The archbishop was commemorated at that point liturgically, but not the pope. If the pope were actually a universal primate with universal jurisdiction, then it should have been the case that he would have been mentioned somewhere in regular liturgies (as is the case today in the modern Roman Catholic Church, and also in Eastern Catholic Churches, which have added this innovation into their liturgies), but outside of patriarchal services (where all of the patriarchs and major archbishops were commemorated by the patriarch present), this was never the case.

While I don’t have a definitive answer for you (it would be nice to have extensive knowledge of the Liturgical histories of both the East and the West), if what you are saying about the anaphora were correct, then the conclusion you are drawing from it is not the only one to be drawn. I have seen extensive commemoration of St. Peter and his Primacy and of him being the “rock”, but I realize this is not what you are asking for. At this point I can offer that, assuming that in the time period we are speaking about the office of patriarch existed, and if they were not commemorated in certain services (those outside of patriarchal services), and this doesn’t disprove the existence of that office, then neither should it be so for the Papacy. How extensive is our knowledge of the very first Liturgy by the way?

I will set aside the matter of St. Cyprian and Firmilian because it does not disprove Catholic teaching on the Papacy. I would think that the burden of proof is on those who think it does.

I’ll also wait for your response to my inquiry in my very first response, then I had planned on tying some of our previous exchange back in.

 

[josie_L]

I believe it was the First Ecumenical Council that said what are we to do with baptisms done by heretics and schismatics. But the interpretation still varies. Our heretics and schismatics today aren’t the same heretics and schismatics in the past, so there will always be an ongoing argument as the heterodox continue to evolve their doctrines.

But we are referring to baptism, and baptism is tied to our belief in the Triune God (three divine persons in one God), i.e., most Christians believe and are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (with water). Baptism is therefore linked to a specific doctrine, hence Jesus’s command to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And if the Church was able amidst turbulent times (and heresies) to delineate what should be done with specific heretics of that time via an ecumenical council, why can it not be done now? You don’t honestly believe that the arguments you state now about heretics and schismatics evolving were any different or true for the Church of the first millenia. It’s a matter of necessity that each autocephalous Orthodox Church have a uniform understanding of how to accept heretics and schismatics of our day into the Church, just like the early Church did.

 

[josie_L]

I believe it was the First Ecumenical Council that said what are we to do with baptisms done by heretics and schismatics. But the interpretation still varies. Our heretics and schismatics today aren’t the same heretics and schismatics in the past, so there will always be an ongoing argument as the heterodox continue to evolve their doctrines.

I wanted to recount to you a story that I read in a book entitled “The Russian Church and the Papacy”:

" William Palmer (1811-1879), a distinguished member of the Anglican Church and of the University of Oxford, wanted to join the Orthodox Church. He went to Russia and Turkey to study the contemporary situation in the Christian East and to find out on what conditions he would be admitted to the communion of the Eastern Orthodox. At St. Petersburg and at Moscow he was told that he had only to abjure the errors of Protestantism before a priest, who would thereupon administer to him the sacrament of holy chrism or confirmation. But at Constantinople he found that he must be baptized afresh. As he knew himself to be a Christian and saw no reason to suspect the validity of his baptism (which incidentally, the Orthodox Russian church admitted without question), he considered that a second baptism would be sacrilege. On the other hand, he could not bring himself to accept Orthodoxy according to the local rules of the Russian church, since he would then become Orthodox only in Russia while remaining a heathen in the eyes of the Greeks; and he had no wish to join a national church but to join the universal Orthodox church. No one could solve this dilemma, and so he became a Roman Catholic."

It is imperative that you resolve this issue to gain uniformity amongst your churches and avoid rebaptizing Christians who were validly baptized (the Catholic Church has).

 

[Cavaradossi]

But we are referring to baptism, and baptism is tied to our belief in the Triune God (three divine persons in one God), i.e., most Christians believe and are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (with water). Baptism is therefore linked to a specific doctrine, hence Jesus’s command to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And if the Church was able amidst turbulent times (and heresies) to delineate what should be done with specific heretics of that time via an ecumenical council, why can it not be done now? You don’t honestly believe that the arguments you state now about heretics and schismatics evolving were any different or true for the Church of the first millenia. It’s a matter of necessity that each autocephalous Orthodox Church have a uniform understanding of how to accept heretics and schismatics of our day into the Church, just like the early Church did.

Interesting assertion, but they didn’t always have uniform understandings of sacramental economy. There was a time, for example, when the Roman Church refused to receive heretical clerics in their former rank, which was certainly not the practice in the East. We see this for example, when Justinian urged Pope Agapetus to receive Arian Clerics in their former rank. The practice of the Roman See seems to have been not to do so, since at least the time of Pope Innocent I, who in a letter to Patriarch Alexander of Antioch, wrote that Arians, having lost the Holy Spirit, could not ordain (a very Cyprianic argument). In fact, non-uniformity was built into the very constitutions of the African Church. The African Church gave each bishop the option (but not an obligation) to receive Donatist clerics in their former rank. The same confusion existed with baptism too, as St. Basil’s first canonical epistle shows.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I wanted to recount to you a story that I read in a book entitled “The Russian Church and the Papacy”:

" William Palmer (1811-1879), a distinguished member of the Anglican Church and of the University of Oxford, wanted to join the Orthodox Church. He went to Russia and Turkey to study the contemporary situation in the Christian East and to find out on what conditions he would be admitted to the communion of the Eastern Orthodox. At St. Petersburg and at Moscow he was told that he had only to abjure the errors of Protestantism before a priest, who would thereupon administer to him the sacrament of holy chrism or confirmation. But at Constantinople he found that he must be baptized afresh. As he knew himself to be a Christian and saw no reason to suspect the validity of his baptism (which incidentally, the Orthodox Russian church admitted without question), he considered that a second baptism would be sacrilege. On the other hand, he could not bring himself to accept Orthodoxy according to the local rules of the Russian church, since he would then become Orthodox only in Russia while remaining a heathen in the eyes of the Greeks; and he had no wish to join a national church but to join the universal Orthodox church. No one could solve this dilemma, and so he became a Roman Catholic."

It is imperative that you resolve this issue to gain uniformity amongst your churches and avoid rebaptizing Christians who were validly baptized (the Catholic Church has).

That is unfortunate, but now things are changing, as Orthodoxy returns to a more traditional understanding of orthopraxis. It is now, for example, the practice that those who are received by economy should be recognized by those who do not receive by economy (just as with the constitutions of the African Church 15 centuries ago). This is now the case in the US. I know that the monastics on Mount Athos have a reputation for doing otherwise, but they do so in disobedience (as one person once told me, just because they do it on the Holy Mountain, that doesn’t make it right, referring to a certain version of Agni Parthene from the Monastery of Simonos Petras, but I think it applies equally here). Eventually perhaps something should be decided upon, but in the mean-time, it is not as large of an issue as you want to make it out to be.

 

[josie_L]

Interesting assertion, but they didn’t always have uniform understandings of sacramental economy. There was a time, for example, when the Roman Church refused to receive heretical clerics in their former rank, which was certainly not the practice in the East. We see this for example, when Justinian urged Pope Agapetus to receive Arian Clerics in their former rank. The practice of the Roman See seems to have been not to do so, since at least the time of Pope Innocent I, who in a letter to Patriarch Alexander of Antioch, wrote that Arians, having lost the Holy Spirit, could not ordain (a very Cyprianic argument). In fact, non-uniformity was built into the very constitutions of the African Church. The African Church gave each bishop the option (but not an obligation) to receive Donatist clerics in their former rank. The same confusion existed with baptism too, as St. Basil’s first canonical epistle shows.

Not an interesting assertion at all, but a matter of of necessity, if there is no uniformity with regard to how certain sects are received into the church then how are these supposed heretics to know they truly belong to the one true church once converted when their reception into the Church is questionable? Look at the example I gave above concerning William Palmer. The Church did indeed choose to rectify loose ends when it came to heretics and schismatics via ecumenical councils (this would create the uniformity I spoke of). Furthermore, the issue of how to receive heretics and schismatics back into the Church was dependent upon their trinitarian views, and as such their baptism (the key issue at hand, as we were speaking of rebaptism). And it does not surprise me that Popes were not willing to accept Arian converts back into positions of power, which is not the same as saying they were not accepted into the Church (did they have to be rebaptized as you do not mention this?). I ask because we are speaking of Arians who were once Catholic who then reverted back to the faith, as such, they must have been properly baptized at one point before their excommunication. This is different from Arians who were brought up Arians, and as such needed to be baptized according to the Church’s trinitarian views (Arians were not trinitarians). This distinction is important. The same goes for Donatists, as we are not speaking of their reception into the Church per se (they were accepted back so I gather otherwise the question of whether they could hold the rank they once had would be mute). The difference with the Donatists, however, is that they were Trinitarians, and therefore did not need to be rebaptized. Either way, my point was the Universal Church knew when to rebaptize, even if there were moments of contention between various churches, uniformity did eventually reign via ecumenical councils and shall I dare say it, popes. I only have to look towards my own church to see this.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not an interesting assertion at all, but a matter of of necessity, if there is no uniformity with regard to how certain sects are received into the church then how are these supposed heretics to know they truly belong to the one true church once converted when their reception into the Church is questionable?

Because they are to trust the judgment of the bishop, the successor of the Apostles who uses his power to bind and loose to judge on whether or not his reception should be done through baptism or with economy.

The Church did indeed choose to rectify loose ends when it came to heretics and schismatics via ecumenical councils (this would create the uniformity I spoke of).

Indeed, but it did not send the Church into a state of panic when there were no hard-set rules. Each bishop (or synod sometimes) did what he believed was most prudent. Orthodoxy will eventually settle the question of the reception of the heterodox into the Church in a more uniform fashion, but there is no enormously pressing need to do so.

Furthermore, the issue of how to receive heretics and schismatics back into the Church was dependent upon their trinitarian views, and as such their baptism (the key issue at hand, as we were speaking of rebaptism). And it does not surprise me that Popes were not willing to accept Arian converts back into positions of power, which is not the same as saying they were not accepted into the Church (did they have to be rebaptized as you do not mention this?). I ask because we are speaking of Arians who were once Catholic who then reverted back to the faith, as such, they must have been properly baptized at one point before their excommunication. This is different from Arians who were brought up Arians, and as such needed to be baptized according to the Church’s trinitarian views (Arians were not trinitarians). This distinction is important.

You are mistaken. Arians and Macedonians (who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit) were received not by Holy Baptism by by Chrismation, according to Canon 7 of the First Council of Constantinople, and Canon 95 of Trullo, which confirms Canon 7 of the First Council of Constantinople, and expands upon it, to standardize the reception of other heretics and schismatics into the Church.

The same goes for Donatists, as we are not speaking of their reception into the Church per se (they were accepted back so I gather otherwise the question of whether they could hold the rank they once had would be mute).

Indeed, but whether they could hold rank was still an equally important sacramental question. If they could not, then that would mean that their Holy Orders would be invalid, and that anybody received not by reordination into his previous clerical status would have to be reordained, and that all those chrismated and communed by such clerics would have received invalid sacraments of initiation.

The difference with the Donatists, however, is that they were Trinitarians, and therefore did not need to be rebaptized.

No such trinitarian criterion existed, as demonstrated by the 7th Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council.

Either way, my point was the Universal Church knew when to rebaptize, even if there were moments of contention between various churches, uniformity did eventually reign via ecumenical councils

And indeed, Orthodoxy will reach some degree of uniformity when this question is mooted once again. Until that time, however, the rule of sacramental economy shall be in play, until there exist canons to apply with exactness.

I only have to look towards my own church to see this.

But your own Church has has conflicts like this too. I do not see how you can fault Orthodoxy for disagreeing internally as to how the hetereodox shall be received when your own Church has done the same in the past.