Papal authority vis a vis an Ecumenical Council

[tdgesq]

From Romes perspective that is true, but not from the perspective of the rest of the Church.

So then from your perspective it makes no difference to the ecumenical nature of Canon 28 of Chalcedon that it was categorically rejected by the Bishop of Rome. I find that position to be inconsistent with your position on the ecumenical nature of councils after Nicaea II.

The rest of the Church accepted the canon and considered it binding.

That isn’t exactly true. I believe the Patriarch of Constantinople actually apologized for what happened.

Why is it difficult to see? Why do you put ecumenical in quotes?

It is difficult to see, and I put the word “ecumenical” in quotes, because time after time the East rejects all councils after second Nicaea even though many of the Eastern Patriarchs attended and agreed. The justification I always hear is that, well, not all of them did. Some dissented until the very end. Take Constantinople IV as an example:

“Besides the Patriarch of Constantinople there were present the representatives of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem and, towards the end, also the representatives of the Patriarch of Alexandria. The attendance of Ignatian bishops was small enough in the beginning; indeed there were never more than 102 bishops present.” newadvent.org/cathen/04310b.htm

Now you tell me how it is this wasn’t an ecumenical council. For crying out loud the Eastern Patriarchs condemned Photius and burned the documents of his heretical council. But hey, this wasn’t ecumenical because later on some bishop or other from the East decided it wasn’t. Yet no such privilege is accorded to the Bishop of Rome when it comes to Chalcedon, even though he supposedly has primacy of honor.

Here’s another example. The council of Florence Session 14:

After that, the Chaldeans sent to us the aforesaid metropolitan Timothy, and Bishop Elias of the Maronites sent an envoy, to make to us a solemn profession of the faith of the Roman church, which by the providence of the Lord and the aid of blessed Peter and the apostle has always remained immaculate . Timothy, the metropolitan, reverently and devoutly professed this faith and doctrine to us, in this sacred general congregation of the ecumenical Lateran council, first in his own Chaldean tongue, which was interpreted in Greek and then translated from Greek into Latin, as follows: I, Timothy, archbishop of Tarsus and metropolitan of the Chaldeans who are in Cyprus, on behalf of myself and all my peoples in Cyprus, profess, vow and promise to almighty God, Father and Son and holy Spirit, and then to you, most holy and blessed father pope Eugenius IV, to this holy apostolic see and to this holy and venerable congregation, that henceforth I will always remain under the obedience of you and your successors and of the holy Roman church as under the unique mother and head of all other churches.
. . .
Then our beloved son in Christ Isaac, envoy of our venerable brother Elias, bishop of the Maronites, on his behalf and in his name, rejecting the heresy of Macarius about one will in Christ, made with great veneration a profession that was similar in all details.

I mean, here I am having to argue with you, a brother Maronite, about a prerogative that you seem to gleefully concede to the East but not to the Roman Pontiff. I am troubled.

 

[anthony022071]

That isn’t exactly true. I believe the Patriarch of Constantinople actually apologized for what happened.

< “As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.” > – Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

 

[anthony022071]

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

faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Canon%20Law/ShortHistoryCanonLaw.htm#The%20First%20Collections%20of%20Canon%20Law%20within%20a%20United%20Christendom

< In the Latin West a parallel development during the fourth and fifth centuries gave papal decretal letters (that were often rescripts, that is responses to questions) an equal place with conciliar canons. These decretal letters were responses to requests that asked for answers from the pope to problems of ecclesiastical doctrine, discipline, and governance. The form of the requests was based on similar letters sent to the Roman emperors on specific questions of law. In fourth century bishops in the Western church began to turn to Rome for answers to questions about discipline and doctrine. >

Pope Damasus’s canon of scripture :

“The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books.” Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382).

 

[tdgesq]

Anthony,

I know about the claimed response of Constantinople to Pope Leo about canon 28 of Chalcedon, but the citation to Mark Bonocore’s apologetics website is considered highly suspect by many here. I thought I had independently verified his original source, but I can’t find where I stored that information.

As for Pope’s decree on the Old Testament canon, it says nothing more to me than what the Council of Trent declared on the canon of Scripture. I do not believe that it nullifies the ancient Old Testament canon of the Peshitta. Some might disagree with me. It is the following that concerns me the most:

How can Eastern Catholics deny the necessity of the Bishop of Rome’s consent as a condition precedent to the ecumenical binding force of a canon when they so easily do so with respect to dissent in other councils - precisely because authorities from the East disagreed? My heart is troubled over this.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

As opposed to Monotheletism?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

< “As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.” > – Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

And yet Constantinople had second place from Constantinople I (canon 3) on (her patriarch’s place in the Ecumenical Councils shows that).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Some things aren’t spelled out in the canons. What canons gave Pope St. Agapetus the authority to depose a Patriarch (for heresy) and Constant(name removed by moderator)le and subsequently appoint a new one? None that I know of, yet the pope did it anyway…and the East doesn’t appear to have a problem with this. As Pope St. Damasus said:

Nicea I, canon XV:

On account of the great disturbance and the factions which are caused, it is decreed that the custom, if it is found to exist in some parts contrary to the canon, shall be totally suppressed, so that neither bishops nor presbyters nor deacons shall transfer from city to city. If after this decision of this holy and great synod anyone shall attempt such a thing, or shall lend himself to such a proceeding, the arrangement shall be totally annulled, and he shall be restored to the church of which he was ordained bishop or presbyter or deacon.

legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/Ecum01.htm#3

Although Anthimus opposed Chalcedon, the official reason he was deposed was this canon, and he was sent back to his see of Trebizond. If he was deposed as a heretic, would he be sent back to his original see?

"The then occupant of the Byzantine See was a certain Anthimus, who without the authority of the canons had left his episcopal see of Trebizond to join the crypto-Monophysites who, in conjunction with the Empress Theodora were then intriguing to undermine the authority of the Council of Chalcedon… Against the protests of the orthodox, the Empress finally seated Anthimus in the patriarcilal chair. No sooner had the Pope arrived than the most prominent of the clergy entered charges against the new patriarch as an intruder and a heretic. Agapetus ordered him to make a written profession of faith and to return to his forsaken see; upon his refusal, he declined to have any relations with him…

newadvent.org/cathen/01202c.htm

The article goes on to state…“for the first time in the history of the Church, personally consecrating his legally elected successor, Mennas…” but fails to mention that it also was the last time (unless 1204 counts). It also doesn’t mention that Rome excommunicated Mennas twice, to the indifference of Constantinople. So much for the aricle’s claim that “This memorable exercise of the papal prerogative was not soon forgotten by the Orientals.”

St. Gregory resigned from Constantinople over the same canon.

On the context of patriachs deposing other patriarchs (Rome wasn’t he only one to do it, and it was done over Rome’s explicit objections)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=200403&page=8

where in my post I talk about Alexandria’s meddling in the episcopacy of Antioch (with Rome) and Constantinople.

 

[jimmy]

faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Canon%20Law/ShortHistoryCanonLaw.htm#The%20First%20Collections%20of%20Canon%20Law%20within%20a%20United%20Christendom

< In the Latin West a parallel development during the fourth and fifth centuries gave papal decretal letters (that were often rescripts, that is responses to questions) an equal place with conciliar canons. These decretal letters were responses to requests that asked for answers from the pope to problems of ecclesiastical doctrine, discipline, and governance. The form of the requests was based on similar letters sent to the Roman emperors on specific questions of law. In fourth century bishops in the Western church began to turn to Rome for answers to questions about discipline and doctrine. >

Pope Damasus’s canon of scripture :

“The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books.” Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382).

And just to clarify, your quote says, “in the west”. It was not a universal thing. Second, it says ‘equal’. It does not put the pope on the level he is now where he is above the council. Third, the west did not view his pronouncements as infallible, otherwise pope Zosimus would not have been opposed when he supported the semi-pelagians. He was almost declared to be a heretic. They rejected what he said.

 

[twf]

I agree with tdgesq…it seems our Eastern brothers grant Eastern bishops far more authority than they grant the Pope of Rome. So any Eastern patriarch can render a council invalid, but the Pope of Rome can not…

 

[jimmy]

That isn’t exactly true. I believe the Patriarch of Constantinople actually apologized for what happened.

It is difficult to see, and I put the word “ecumenical” in quotes, because time after time the East rejects all councils after second Nicaea even though many of the Eastern Patriarchs attended and agreed. The justification I always hear is that, well, not all of them did. Some dissented until the very end. Take Constantinople IV as an example:

“Besides the Patriarch of Constantinople there were present the representatives of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem and, towards the end, also the representatives of the Patriarch of Alexandria. The attendance of Ignatian bishops was small enough in the beginning; indeed there were never more than 102 bishops present.” newadvent.org/cathen/04310b.htm

Now you tell me how it is this wasn’t an ecumenical council. For crying out loud the Eastern Patriarchs condemned Photius and burned the documents of his heretical council. But hey, this wasn’t ecumenical because later on some bishop or other from the East decided it wasn’t. Yet no such privilege is accorded to the Bishop of Rome when it comes to Chalcedon, even though he supposedly has primacy of honor.

It doesn’t come down to one bishop in the east. It is a matter of the Church accepting the council. I have accorded nothing to the east that I wouldn’t to the west. But you are according to Rome something you will not accord to the east. You make Rome infallible and the east is supposed to simply submit to all Rome says. There are bishops and then there is the pope. Rome calls a council, declares it ecumenical, and declares it not to be ecumenical. It doesn’t matter what the rest of the bishops think. It could be 2000 bishops on one side and the pope on the other side and the pope is the one who is automatically assumed to be right because he is infallible.

 

[jimmy]

I agree with tdgesq…it seems our Eastern brothers grant Eastern bishops far more authority than they grant the Pope of Rome. So any Eastern patriarch can render a council invalid, but the Pope of Rome can not…

In the east the bishops don’t simply call an ecumenical council. It is a matter of the whole Church, including the lay people, accepting the council. The west basically says the pope calls a council and if he declares it to be ecumenical and consequently infallible then it is. They almost view it as if there is the Church which is composed of the pope and the bishops in communion with him. Then there are the lay people. In the west the people have nothing to do with the faith, they simply submit. But in the east the people are integral in whether a council is determined to be ecumenical. It is great that a patriarch condemned Photius at Constantinople IV but the fact is that it did not pan out as ecumenical. It was not accepted by the entire Church.

The east views things more as God guiding the Church as a whole. He is guiding the lay and the bishops.

 

[HailMary]

In the east the bishops don’t simply call an ecumenical council. It is a matter of the whole Church, including the lay people, accepting the council.

Really?

What percentage of lay people? Does that mean the “pre-vatican 2” are justified in saying that Vatican 2 was not a real council? Explain please.

 

[Hesychios]

I agree with tdgesq…it seems our Eastern brothers grant Eastern bishops far more authority than they grant the Pope of Rome. So any Eastern patriarch can render a council invalid, but the Pope of Rome can not…

I don’t know if there is any way I can answer this commentary except with more commentary. This might help or it may not.

Bishops in the East (by which I mean, those not appointed by Rome) have as much authority within their diocese as the Pope has within his diocese (on a practical level). But they must exercise it with great care and sensitivity.

The bishops are gathered in synod, and they mutually agree to certain things as policy. Usually these will be only minor differences from other synods in their practices or calendar. Such as the difference between the Bulgarian church and the Romanian church, likewise for the Ruthenians and Ukrainians, they would seem very much alike to you and I.

Perhaps one synod prefers to use the modern vernacular and another prefers to use Old Slavonic, old Greek or Aramaic. All of the bishops in the synod mutually agree, the power of the synod is the combined authority of those bishops.

Now it is a truism in the Eastern way of looking at this a bishop without a flock is not really a bishop any more, just like a shepherd who loses a flock is no longer a shepherd.

If the shepherd decides to drive a flock over a cliff, he should not be surprised if the flock does not follow him. From the shepherds point of view, if the flock will not follow him, there is no point in making the jump. He can lead the flock, but he must be able to recognize when they are not going to take a certain path, it’s not an exact science.

It is actually in the face of changes that such resistance manifests itself. Orthodoxy is conservative by nature, people want what they know and are familiar with. Every praying babushka is a theologian, they know the prayers and therefore they understand the basic theology. The people will not accept new prayers that change the meaning expressed in the liturgy. Some people see this as one way the infallibility of the church manifests itself.

So the “top-down” management style can be very effective, but it is not normative in the east, at least not across the fence in the Orthodox churches. The church is much more collaborative in most eastern synods. (Not all, some have very strong patriarchs but that is a matter for the synod to work out internally).

So just as the Roman Catholics understand that the Pope must accept a Council BEFORE it can be accepted as ecumenical (a process that took some time in the “olden” days, when he usually did not attend) the representatives from the eastern churches have to go home with the agreements for ratification by their own local synods.

Yes, it does mean that policy changes proceed much more slowly, at a snails pace even, but the Eastern churches do not usually have to deal with the trauma of fast paced major changes.

For instance, if the Roman Catholic church had operated under a similar operative pattern in the post Vat II era, the NO would probably never have appeared in the way that it did, with it’s new prayers and music plus accompanying architectural/schematic changes…everything changing so fast that the public (like my father and mother) felt alienated. That alienation would have been very apparent in an Orthodox church (with people asking their bishop for a blessing, then telling him off in no uncertain terms!) and the bishops would not have been able to proceed with it, there would have been effective push back.

That’s just how it is, and historically has been.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

…any Eastern patriarch can render a council invalid, but the Pope of Rome can not…

I don’t think that this can be considered a fair representation of what is happening. What you are describing is the “liberum veto”, which as I recall was a big problem in the Polish kingdom.

Sometimes a member of the Sejm would stand up in the chambers and shout “I forbid it!” and run off on his horse before any one could stop him and try to persuade him out of it. That actually did kill off effective legislation in Poland.

No one prelate in the Orthodox church can kill a Council, but he might not implement it within his own diocese for a long time (possibly, they adopted it as whole synods). That is apparently how the Eastern Catholic bishops viewed the western penchant for witholding approval.

The Ecumenical Councils were called ***for the empire ***and bishops from all over the empire attended. Bishops outside of the empire could not be compelled to attend, nor could their churches be compelled to adopt the results of those Councils. But records show that many bishops from outside the Roman empire did make it (even from Kerala, Persia, Abysinnia and Nubia). Their signatures could not bind their churches, the findings of those Councils could only be advisory. The Councils asked that these churches approve and adopt what they had done.

If they did not, the Councils were not thereby unsuccessful, but the lack of acceptence by those churches would be a great disappointment. For a Pope to accept all but one canon would be a disappointment to be sure, but not a church breaking action.

It probably made concelebration with all five patriarchs together (wouldn’t that have been beautiful!) an impossibility from that point on. That in itself could have powerful ramifications in the future.

Michael

 

[anthony022071]

Anthony,

I know about the claimed response of Constantinople to Pope Leo about canon 28 of Chalcedon, but the citation to Mark Bonocore’s apologetics website is considered highly suspect by many here. I thought I had independently verified his original source, but I can’t find where I stored that information.

Catholic apologists might be suspect to the Orthodox,but surely the Greek historians that Mark Bonocore mentioned aren’t suspect when they confirm that canon 28 was shot down by the pope.

As for Pope’s decree on the Old Testament canon, it says nothing more to me than what the Council of Trent declared on the canon of Scripture. I do not believe that it nullifies the ancient Old Testament canon of the Peshitta. Some might disagree with me. It is the following that concerns me the most:

Someone claimed that it was a modern thing for the pope to write canons as he saw fit.
I posted that quote to show that the pope pronounced the canon of scripture for the whole Church.

How can Eastern Catholics deny the necessity of the Bishop of Rome’s consent as a condition precedent to the ecumenical binding force of a canon when they so easily do so with respect to dissent in other councils - precisely because authorities from the East disagreed? My heart is troubled over this.

It has to do with Byzantine cultural pride and nationalism.
It’s the same thing with Gallicanism. Anyone who values cultural traditions and independence more than an over-arching jurisdiction will resent the papacy.

 

[tdgesq]

It doesn’t come down to one bishop in the east. It is a matter of the Church accepting the council.

I think this just illustrates the problem. Regardless of how we define the Church or Church consciousness or whatever we want to call it, there is no way canon 28 makes the grade. The west did and has since rejected it. The Patriarch of the West did, which means that in recent times Roman Catholics who make up well over half of the Catholic communion reject it.

I have accorded nothing to the east that I wouldn’t to the west.

But you have. The Pope and the RCC who he represents get held to one standard on Chalcedon while the Eastern bishops do not for councils occurring after Nicaea II.

But you are according to Rome something you will not accord to the east. You make Rome infallible and the east is supposed to simply submit to all Rome says.

I will give you a dollar if you can find anywhere in this thread that I’ve suggested such a thing. You won’t be able to because I do not believe that your statement sets forth the RC belief on the matter. Nor will you find it because this thread is supposed to be about Papal authority with respect to an ecumenical council.

There are bishops and then there is the pope. Rome calls a council, declares it ecumenical, and declares it not to be ecumenical.

Rome did not call the Council of Chalcedon. Emperor Marcian did, and Pope Leo was opposed to it.

It doesn’t matter what the rest of the bishops think. It could be 2000 bishops on one side and the pope on the other side and the pope is the one who is automatically assumed to be right because he is infallible.

I have never made that argument. I have asked how the decrees of a council can be “ecumenical” when the Bishop of Rome disagrees. It is the same argument used by eastern apologists for the non-binding nature of later western councils. It is a monumental double standard.

 

[anthony022071]

And yet Constantinople had second place from Constantinople I (canon 3) on (her patriarch’s place in the Ecumenical Councils shows that).

That canon too was shot down,by Pope Damasus in his 3rd decretal,and Pope Leo also condemned it.

Pope Leo the Great,epistle cvi:

< V. The sanction alleged to have been accorded 60 years ago to the supremacy of Constantinople over Alexandria and Antioch is worthless.

“Be not highminded,” brother, “but fear ,” and cease to disquiet with unwarrantable demands the pious ears of Christian princes, who I am sure will be better pleased by your modesty than by your pride. For your purpose is in no way whatever supported by the written assent of certain bishops given, as you allege, 60 years ago , and never brought to the knowledge of the Apostolic See by your predecessors; and this transaction, which from its outset was doomed to fall through and has now long done so, you now wish to bolster up by means that are too late and useless, viz., by extracting from the brethren an appearance of consent which their modesty from very weariness yielded to their own injury. Remember what the Lord threatens him with, who shall have caused one of the little ones to stumble, and get wisdom to understand what a judgment of God he will have to endure who has not feared to give occasion of stumbling to so many churches and so many priests. For I confess I am so fast bound by love of the whole brotherhood that I will not agree with any one in demands which are against his own interests, and thus you may clearly perceive that my opposition to you, beloved, proceeds from the kindly intention to restrain you from disturbing the universal Church by sounder counsel. The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on antiquity. The See of Alexandria may not lose any of that dignity which it merited through S. Mark, the evangelist and disciple of the blessed Peter, nor may the splendour of so great a church be obscured by another’s clouds, Dioscorus having fallen through his persistence in impiety. The church of Antioch too, in which first at the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter the Christian name arose , must continue in the position assigned it by the Fathers, and being set in the third place must never be lowered therefrom. For the See is on a different footing to the holders of it; and each individual’s chief honour is his own integrity. And since that does not lose its proper worth in any place, how much more glorious must it be when placed in the magnificence of the city of Constantinople, where many priests may find both a defence of the Fathers’ canons and an example of uprightness in observing you? >

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That canon too was shot down,by Pope Damasus in his 3rd decretal,and Pope Leo also condemned it.

Pope Leo the Great,epistle cvi:

< V. The sanction alleged to have been accorded 60 years ago to the supremacy of Constantinople over Alexandria and Antioch is worthless.

“Be not highminded,” brother, “but fear ,” and cease to disquiet with unwarrantable demands the pious ears of Christian princes, who I am sure will be better pleased by your modesty than by your pride. For your purpose is in no way whatever supported by the written assent of certain bishops given, as you allege, 60 years ago , and never brought to the knowledge of the Apostolic See by your predecessors; and this transaction, which from its outset was doomed to fall through and has now long done so, you now wish to bolster up by means that are too late and useless, viz., by extracting from the brethren an appearance of consent which their modesty from very weariness yielded to their own injury. Remember what the Lord threatens him with, who shall have caused one of the little ones to stumble, and get wisdom to understand what a judgment of God he will have to endure who has not feared to give occasion of stumbling to so many churches and so many priests. For I confess I am so fast bound by love of the whole brotherhood that I will not agree with any one in demands which are against his own interests, and thus you may clearly perceive that my opposition to you, beloved, proceeds from the kindly intention to restrain you from disturbing the universal Church by sounder counsel. The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on antiquity. The See of Alexandria may not lose any of that dignity which it merited through S. Mark, the evangelist and disciple of the blessed Peter, nor may the splendour of so great a church be obscured by another’s clouds, Dioscorus having fallen through his persistence in impiety. The church of Antioch too, in which first at the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter the Christian name arose , must continue in the position assigned it by the Fathers, and being set in the third place must never be lowered therefrom. For the See is on a different footing to the holders of it; and each individual’s chief honour is his own integrity. And since that does not lose its proper worth in any place, how much more glorious must it be when placed in the magnificence of the city of Constantinople, where many priests may find both a defence of the Fathers’ canons and an example of uprightness in observing you? >

NOTE: Alexandria’s honor is said to be “merited” through the disciple of St. Peter, whereas Antioch “must continue” in the position assigned because of the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter. But a disciple is not above his teacher: why is Alexandria (St. Mark) above Antioch (St. Peter)? Because Alexandria, the secular scheme of things was the second city of the empire, and Antioch was third. Hence the rational of the canons of Constantinople I and Chalcedon.

So, Pope Damasus “shot down” the 3rd canon of Constantinople in his decretal, eh? But then, Pope Leo the Great claims that that it was “never brought to the knowledge of the Apostolic See.” How can Pope Damsus “shoot down” something that Pope Leo tells was never brought to the knowledg of the “Apostolic See”? Either Pope Leo is lying, or he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Which brings up another problem: at your council Lateran IV

1. The dignity of the patriarchal sees

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord’s cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.

legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM12.HTM#5

My now, doesn’t that order resemble that of the canons of Constantinople I and Chalcedon? Pope Leo says “The rights of provincial primates may not be ]overthrown nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on antiquity. The See of Alexandria may not lose any of that dignity which it merited through S. Mark, the evangelist and disciple of the blessed Peter, nor may the splendour of so great a church be obscured by another’s clouds,” yet the Lateran council, called by Innocent III, decrees that Alexandria will have second place AFTER Constantinople, not Old Rome. And where Pope Leo decrees that Antioch “must continue in the position assigned it by the Fathers, and being set in the third place must never be lowered therefrom”

Not much “renewing of the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees.” Lateran IV came almost 8 cent.s after Pope Leo: were the privleges less antique? Why the clouds from Constantinople overshadowing Alexandria?

None of the patriarchs received the pallium from Rome. None. They did at the time of Latervan IV, because the Crusaders had set up the Latin empire then, and appointed a Latin as EP.

Shot down? If you mean protested, maybe. If you mean nullified, well, the conduct of Constantinople at the Ecumenical Councils (Nestorius was a Archbishop at Ephesus, Damasus and Leo would have him a suffragan of Herakleia; Constantinople presided at Chalcedon, as she did at Constantinople II, despite Pope Vigilius’ objections, etc…) shows that any objections from Rome were ignored.

 

[tdgesq]

Anthony,

Catholic apologists might be suspect to the Orthodox,but surely the Greek historians that Mark Bonocore mentioned aren’t suspect when they confirm that canon 28 was shot down by the pope.

I agree with you. Like I said, I believe at one point I did verify his source.

Someone claimed that it was a modern thing for the pope to write canons as he saw fit. I posted that quote to show that the pope pronounced the canon of scripture for the whole Church.

Point well taken. I was just trying to head off a Peshitta dispute at the pass.

It has to do with Byzantine cultural pride and nationalism. It’s the same thing with Gallicanism. Anyone who values cultural traditions and independence more than an over-arching jurisdiction will resent the papacy.

I pray that you are wrong about this, but it’s beginning to look pretty hopeless. If the Pope doesn’t even get the same honor in council as other apostolic successors, then I may be forced to agree.