Papal authority vis a vis an Ecumenical Council

[Joe_Kelley]

I would suggest that arguing what the canons say is fruitless until you establish who has the authority to promulgate canons.

 

[anthony022071]

Hesychios

< It’s beginning to look like the modern office is based upon a lot of conjecture, which is why there are so many conflicting opinions about it. >

The jurisdictional claims of the papacy are based on tradition and history.

< Where are the rules that say a Pope has veto power over everything in Council? >

That was just the practice,as with Pope Leo vetoing canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon. The bishops submitted it to the pope for his approval,but he denied it,and it was considered null and void by the Eastern churches for 6 centuries.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm

“Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.” – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

< The Patristic quotes offered her tells us next to nothing about how the Popes relate to a council or the rest of the church, and what specific rules govern their actions, what limits would be natural to a role as the highest primate in a church. >

The quotes I posted show that the pope had authority over an ecumenical council,that the decisions of a council were subject to the pope,that no decisions of a council could be universally binding without the approval of the pope. What else do you need to know? The bishops of a council argue and make their decisions independently of the pope,but the pope has the final word. If it had been left up to the councils to determine the doctrines of the Church,then Arianism and Monophysitism and other heresies would have prevailed.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Anthony,

Hesychios

< It’s beginning to look like the modern office is based upon a lot of conjecture, which is why there are so many conflicting opinions about it. >

The jurisdictional claims of the papacy are based on tradition and history.

I just popped in for a hot second, I am very busy at work so I wasn’t planning to post tonight. But this got me thinking.

Are we then, to rely on tradition and history as our main witness in this issue of papal jurisdiction and responsibilities?

< Where are the rules that say a Pope has veto power over everything in Council? >

That was just the practice,as with Pope Leo vetoing canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon. The bishops submitted it to the pope for his approval,but he denied it,and it was considered null and void by the Eastern churches for 6 centuries.

But this appears to be a false argument.

Chalcedon canon 28 had full force and effect all over the east between the other four patriarchates. The Popes objections carried no weight outside of the western church, which really did not do much in the way of concelebrating anyway. I think that when this argument is shown to others as representing jurisdiction beyond the western patriarchate it is less than forthright.

This is possibly why Rome reversed itself later on this canon. I think that it had to recognize the reality.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm

“Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.” – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

As above. I wonder if this quote is accurate, or accurately translated, the fact remains that the Council was not accepted in it’s entirety by the bishop of Rome, primate of the western church…but the Eastern churches had already changed the order of precedence, disregarding the bishop of Romes objections. The Pope did not demonstrate an exercise of authority over the Eastern church at this incident, but just the opposite. His objection was ignored.

Michael

 

[jimmy]

Just because they (the other apostles) were not granted the Keys, does not mean they don’t have any authority. Come on now.

The giving of the authority is the giving of the keys. When Christ gave them the authority to bind and to loose He gave them the keys.

 

[tdgesq]

You are basically telling me that there is nothing.

No, I’m telling you that there aren’t any organized western codes of canon law until sometime around the twelfth century. That doesn’t mean that historically evidence is lacking for role of the Pope in an ecumenical council. I realize the evidence provided up to this point isn’t enough for you, whatever “enough” might be.

I made simple requests and a few comments on the responses. No one can even tell me when the canons explicitly delineating the rights and prerogatives of the bishop of Rome that DO exist, today, for your church…were composed, or by whom.

I gave you the 1990 Eastern Canons. There may be earlier compilations from the twelfth century on, but I do not have access to those so I couldn’t say. Would that make any difference to you one way or the other? You’ve been given canons from St. Maruthas now, although I believe those to be the Syriac canons that were attributed to Nicaea, which aren’t considered authentic by the Church. If that isn’t what they are then I’d say Anthony has given us something to consider.

What I see here in your post is a bit of veiled insult and diversion.

No more insulting than your bit about how we just all have nothing more than opinions. And there is no diversion intended. You aren’t satisfied with what’s been provided so far to support papal authority within a council, but can’t give any canons of your own to support the authority of an ecumenical council with or without a Pope. Btw, I don’t know of any that aren’t apocryphal and occurred prior to the twelfth century.

That’s OK. It wasn’t my idea to start a thread. So if you have nothing substantive to add that’s fine with me.

That’s interesting, since I took up your comment on Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Now apparently it isn’t worthy of discussion. The Bishop of Rome plainly said that Canon 28 was out, and my recollection is the same as Anthony’s that for many centuries after that the East held to the same. I believe I have the correspondence with Pope Leo on my computer at home about that. I’ll see if I can dig it up later tonight.

 

[jimmy]

No more insulting than your bit about how we just all have nothing more than opinions. And there is no diversion intended. You aren’t satisfied with what’s been provided so far to support papal authority within a council, but can’t give any canons of your own to support the authority of an ecumenical council with or without a Pope. Btw, I don’t know of any that aren’t apocryphal and occurred prior to the twelfth century.

It is a false comparison. A council is the source of all canons. It does not need to make a canon to say it is authoritative when it is the source of the canons. It would be a meaningless canon anyway, the council giving itself authority.

 

[tdgesq]

But this appears to be a false argument.

Chalcedon canon 28 had full force and effect all over the east between the other four patriarchates. The Popes objections carried no weight outside of the western church, which really did not do much in the way of concelebrating anyway. I think that when this argument is shown to others as representing jurisdiction beyond the western patriarchate it is less than forthright.

This is possibly why Rome reversed itself later on this canon. I think that it had to recognize the reality.

I just saw this after I posted. A couple of quick comments. First, how can a canon be considered binding as part of an ecumenical council when #1 and #2 say no? Remember, we have councils where four patriarchs plus the Bishop of Rome said yes, yet they are now not considered ecumenical by the Orthodox.

Rome did not reverse itself on that Canon. It did affirm in ecumenical discussions that Constantinople is #2, but not under the same understanding as was proposed in Chalcedon. The whole problem with with Canon 28 is that it doesn’t explicitly recognize the Petrine ministry of the Pope. Being an imperial city is nice, but hardly the authority for the prerogatives that the Pope exercised.

 

[tdgesq]

It is a false comparison. A council is the source of all canons. It does not need to make a canon to say it is authoritative when it is the source of the canons. It would be a meaningless canon anyway, the council giving itself authority.

I almost agree with you here, other than to say it is a false comparison. Roman Catholics claim that councils are ecumenical precisely because they receive the affirmation of the Bishop of Rome. Not in spite of it. Some here require that we show a canon that sets forth this internal requirement for an authoritative council with an authoritative set of canons. I do not believe that is necessary.

On the other hand, I find it highly suspect when I hear that the Western Patriarch’s approval isn’t necessary for a council to be ecumenical and binding, but then am told that other councils aren’t ecumenical because some of the other Eastern Patriarchs didn’t agree. They are just called “general councils” if that happens. Does that seem consistent to you?

 

[HailMary]

The giving of the authority is the giving of the keys. When Christ gave them the authority to bind and to loose He gave them the keys.

OK lets just ignore why He specifically gave them to Peter alone earlier and lets also ignore why Peter is always mentioned first and why Peter is alone charged by Christ at the end of the Gospel of John to “feed” and “tend” His Sheep. Yeah, not.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It is a false comparison. A council is the source of all canons. It does not need to make a canon to say it is authoritative when it is the source of the canons. It would be a meaningless canon anyway, the council giving itself authority.

That is the question. What is your source for that claim?

 

[Aramis]

The giving of the authority is the giving of the keys. When Christ gave them the authority to bind and to loose He gave them the keys.

And Christ, later, charges Peter as the shepherd. No others are recorded as such.

 

[Hesychios]

And Christ, later, charges Peter as the shepherd. No others are recorded as such.

Are not all bishops shepherds?

From my perspective it is specifically that model that all bishops emulate. In fact, the Omophorion, which your bishop wears represents the sheep over his shoulders. Quite an image.

If the ancients did not separate that message from all bishops who are we to begin doing so?

http://www.iconsexplained.com/iec/lib/00110_good_shepherd.jpg

http://www.rocor.de/vestnik/20012/i...hodoxeurope.org/images/upload/1202Vienna3.jpg
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Hesychios]

That is the question. What is your source for that claim?

Canons (Gr kanon) are the rules by which the church operates when bishops and synods mutually agree to apply a uniform standard. They are composed in local Councils for local churches and general councils for wider collections of churches.

The Ecumenical Councils were for all of the churches in the empire.

As I understand it that’s the history of the canons of the church. They are composed in Councils and Synods. Sometime later, in the west, the idea became current that the bishop of Rome could compose or modify canons under his own authority for churches outside of Rome. Usually he does this with the aid of secretaries and deputies in his curia. I don’t know when that practice got started but this is a very good additional question to the original:

When were the first canons composed detailing the rights and reponsibilities of the bishop of Rome over a Council, and how were they composed? By a council, or by the bishop of Rome himself?

I don’t really care if the first canons were composed as late as 1915AD, if that is the earliest…I would still like to know.

It just seems that there is no general knowledge of this information out there.

Michael

 

[jj2011]

Canons (Gr kanon) are the rules by which the church operates when bishops and synods mutually agree to apply a uniform standard. They are composed in local Councils for local churches and general councils for wider collections of churches.

The Ecumenical Councils were for all of the churches in the empire.

As I understand it that’s the history of the canons of the church. They are composed in Councils and Synods. Sometime later, in the west, the idea became current that the bishop of Rome could compose or modify canons under his own authority for churches outside of Rome. Usually he does this with the aid of secretaries and deputies in his curia. I don’t know when that practice got started but this is a very good additional question to the original:

When were the first canons composed detailing the rights and reponsibilities of the bishop of Rome over a Council, and how were they composed? By a council, or by the bishop of Rome himself?

I don’t really care if the first canons were composed as late as 1915AD, if that is the earliest…I would still like to know.

It just seems that there is no general knowledge of this information out there.

Michael

I believe the 1917 code actually does have canons laying down the pope’s right to convoke an ecumenical council.

However, the source of the papal authority in these matters is the apostolic primacy. In the epistles of Leo the Great, everything he does in annulling the acts of the robber council and demanding a new one, deposing some eastern bishops while reconciling others, is done by the authority of Blessed Peter.

The study of those epistles is still indispensable for students of these issues.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Canons (Gr kanon) are the rules by which the church operates when bishops and synods mutually agree to apply a uniform standard. They are composed in local Councils for local churches and general councils for wider collections of churches. . .

Where do the bishops and synods get the authority to create these standards? What is the authority that makes them supreme?

 

[jimmy]

That is the question. What is your source for that claim?

History, it is not until modern times that Rome could jusr write canons as they see fit.

 

[tdgesq]

History, it is not until modern times that Rome could jusr write canons as they see fit.

Jimmy, couldn’t we at least say this much. If the Bishop of Rome categorically rejects a canon adopted by a number of bishops in council, then that canon does not have binding force on all the faithful.

That is what I see happened with canon 28 of Chalcedon. It is difficult to see how such a canon can be the product of an “ecumenical” anything from the East’s perspective.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

History, it is not until modern times that Rome could jusr write canons as they see fit.

While past practice has a place in common law, I think power in the Church must be derived from a higher authority. One can’t just claim power because one has claimed it previously. We see any number of ecclisial communities out there claiming power because they have had it for x number of years.

 

[jimmy]

While past practice has a place in common law, I think power in the Church must be derived from a higher authority. One can’t just claim power because one has claimed it previously. We see any number of ecclisial communities out there claiming power because they have had it for x number of years.

Yeh, the higher authority is God. It is not the pope.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy, couldn’t we at least say this much. If the Bishop of Rome categorically rejects a canon adopted by a number of bishops in council, then that canon does not have binding force on all the faithful.

That is what I see happened with canon 28 of Chalcedon. It is difficult to see how such a canon can be the product of an “ecumenical” anything from the East’s perspective.

From Romes perspective that is true, but not from the perspective of the rest of the Church. The rest of the Church accepted the canon and considered it binding. Why is it difficult to see? Why do you put ecumenical in quotes?