Papal authority vis a vis an Ecumenical Council

[Ghosty]

No,it was not considered second to Rome,except by some of the clergy of Constantinople. As Pope Gelasius and Pope Leo clearly stated,Alexandria was the second see and Antioch was the third. Pope Leo recognized canon 28 as an attempt at usurpation and jurisdiction over Alexandria and Antioch. And since Rome had jurisdiction over the whole Church,the “privileges of honor” that canon 28 claims for Constantinople were also an infringement on Roman authority in the East.

With all due respect, I think you’re missing the point.

The Canons in question always put Constantinople second to Rome, therefore when Rome objected it wasn’t doing so in order to protect its own power, but that of Alexandria.

We’re not talking about whether or not Constantinople should have taken second place or not, but rather what the reasoning was behind Rome’s objection.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother anthony,

No,it was not considered second to Rome,except by some of the clergy of Constantinople. As Pope Gelasius and Pope Leo clearly stated,Alexandria was the second see and Antioch was the third. Pope Leo recognized canon 28 as an attempt at usurpation and jurisdiction over Alexandria and Antioch. And since Rome had jurisdiction over the whole Church,the “privileges of honor” that canon 28 claims for Constantinople were also an infringement on Roman authority in the East.

You have not yet proven your claim which I refused - namely, as you repeat here, that Canon 28 was an infringement on Roman authority in the East.

Please read through the letters of Leo. You will not find a single instance where he claims rejection of Canon 28 based on such an infringement of his prerogatives.

Instead we find him rebuking Anatolius through the Emperor in this way: “Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its high rank, and under the protection of God’s right hand, long enjoy your clemency’s rule. Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine; and there can be no buliding save on that rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation.” (Ep. 54)

What is this rock but the Apostle Peter and the bishopric which has obtained succession from him? Indeed, in another letter, he specifies this: "The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown nor metropolitan"bishops be defrauded of privilegebased on antiquity. The See of Alexandria may not lose any of that dignity which it merited through S. Mark, the evangelist and disciple of blessed Peter…The church of Antioch too, in which at first the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter the Christian name arose.must continue in the position assigned to it by the Fathers.(Ep. 56)

Note how St. Leo connects the Sees to St. Peter. It is the divine sanction of apostolicity, validated by the Nicene Council, that determines the status of the Sees, not any secular consideration.

We are getting off topic, so this will be my last response to this issue.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Thank you, once again, brother Ghosty!

 

[anthony022071]

With all due respect, I think you’re missing the point.

The Canons in question always put Constantinople second to Rome, therefore when Rome objected it wasn’t doing so in order to protect its own power, but that of Alexandria.

The councils are not the final authority in the Church. All decisions made by a council must have the ratification of the pope to be valid. Councils don’t get to self-authorize themselves.
Had it not been for the veto power of the popes,the heretical Eastern councils could have defined Arianism or Monophysitism as doctrine for the Eastern churches.

Pope Damasus did not approve of canon 3 of Constantinople 1. He may not even have been made aware of it. In any case,he affirmed the traditional ordering of the apostolic sees in his Decretals of 382,the year after the council.

“Although all the catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront, not by the councilor decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: “You are Peter …(Matt 16:18-19).” In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name ‘Christians’ was first applied, as to a new people.” (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)

Pope Leo was not even aware of canon 3 of Constantinople 1 until after the council of Chalcedon ended. Canon 3 had never been ratified by the Pope Damasus so it could not be used to justify canon 28.

Canon 28 gave Rome’s “priviliges of honor” to Constantinople over Greece,the Black Sea region,and Asia (which in those times meant the whole of the Middle East,Arabia,and Egypt) to Constantinople. The infringement on the rights of Alexandria was also an infringement upon the jurisdiction of Rome,because Rome has responsibility,and therefore jurisdiction,over the whole Church. Alexandria was not some kind of autocephalous or sui juris church.

We’re not talking about whether or not Constantinople should have taken second place or not, but rather what the reasoning was behind Rome’s objection.

How can you say that when you and mardukm have claimed that Constantinople was second to Rome? Pope Damasus and Pope Leo disagreed with that claim.

 

[anthony022071]

Dear brother anthony,

You have not yet proven your claim which I refused - namely, as you repeat here, that Canon 28 was an infringement on Roman authority in the East.

That’s easy: Rome had jurisdiction over the whole Church;and canon 28 gave Rome’s authority in ecclesiastical matters in the East over to Constantinople.

Please read through the letters of Leo. You will not find a single instance where he claims rejection of Canon 28 based on such an infringement of his prerogatives.

The wording of canon 28 itself is proof of infringement upon papal prerogatives.
It says Constantinople “enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is,and rank next after her;”

If canon 28 were not an infringement on his jurisdiction in the East,then why do you suppose Leo was concerned enough to shoot it down? What authority would Leo have in vetoing a canon that affected what wasn’t under his jurisdiction? Who was the highest authority in ecclesiastical matters? the pope,or other bishops?
If it was Rome as the canon suggests,then obviously the canon was an infringement upon papal authority.
The authors of the canon would not have bothered to mention the priviliges of Rome,unless Rome had jurisdiction in the East.

Again,see this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208250&

 

[Ghosty]

How can you say that when you and mardukm have claimed that Constantinople was second to Rome? Pope Damasus and Pope Leo disagreed with that claim.

That’s just it: we’re NOT saying that Constantinople was second to Rome. We’re saying that the Canon in question stated that Constaninople was SECOND, not EQUAL to Rome, and therefore Rome wasn’t protecting itself in rejecting the Canon in question.

As I said earlier, “Constantinople was always considered Second to Rome” should be read as meaning “the Canons in question always claimed Constantinople was second to Rome, not equal to it”. We’re not arguing for the “Second Place” status of Constantinople (which is really immaterial to the point, and what’s more Mardukm is himself Coptic, i.e. Alexandrian, and would be the last person supporting Constantinople’s claim here ), but rather pointing out the real reasons why Rome argued against the Canon.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello,

No,it was not considered second to Rome,except by some of the clergy of Constantinople. As Pope Gelasius and Pope Leo clearly stated,Alexandria was the second see and Antioch was the third. Pope Leo recognized canon 28 as an attempt at usurpation and jurisdiction over Alexandria and Antioch. And since Rome had jurisdiction over the whole Church,the “privileges of honor” that canon 28 claims for Constantinople were also an infringement on Roman authority in the East.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=208250&

Pope Leo to Anatolius:

“And so after the not irreproachable beginning of your ordination, after the consecration of the bishop of Antioch, which you claimed for yourself contrary to the regulations of the canons, I grieve, beloved, that you have fallen into this too, that you should try to break down the most sacred constitutions of the Nicene canons: as if this opportunity had expressly offered itself to you for the See of Alexandria to lose its privilege of second place, and the church of Antioch to forego its right to being third in dignity, in order that when these places had been subjected to your jurisdiction, all metropolitan bishops might be deprived of their proper honour.”

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

…“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.”

Can you also post the letters where Pope Leo complains that the diocese of Illyricum and Thessalonika, previously under Rome, have been attached to New Rome, and despite all Rome’s protest, the bishops there continued to submit themselves to Constantinople?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello, I’m purple

Hi. I’m in black.
With all due respect, I think you’re missing the point.

The Canons in question always put Constantinople second to Rome, therefore when Rome objected it wasn’t doing so in order to protect its own power, but that of Alexandria.

The councils are not the final authority in the Church. All decisions made by a council must have the ratification of the pope to be valid. Councils don’t get to self-authorize themselves.
Had it not been for the veto power of the popes,the heretical Eastern councils could have defined Arianism or Monophysitism as doctrine for the Eastern churches.

And Zosimos would have let Pelagianism go, and then there’s our friend Honorius,etc…

This ratification by the pope claim is quite late, and quite ignored by the Councils. The Fifth Council ignored Pope Vigilius, until he got on board.

As for Arianism and Monophysitism, Pope Sylvester did nothing at Nicea, and Pope Damasus did nothing at Constantinople I (held by those in schism from Rome. Rome adopted their Creed anyway, until the Arians got them to deform it in Spain).

Pope Damasus did not approve of canon 3 of Constantinople 1. He may not even have been made aware of it. In any case,he affirmed the traditional ordering of the apostolic sees in his Decretals of 382,the year after the council.

Asia did NOT mean the whole East. It meant Asia Minor. Egypt was never included in it.

Rome got involved because Rome was becoming irrelevant in the world, much as the current state of the EP makes him do rather grandiose things.

We’re not talking about whether or not Constantinople should have taken second place or not, but rather what the reasoning was behind Rome’s objection.

How can you say that when you and mardukm have claimed that Constantinople was second to Rome? Pope Damasus and Pope Leo disagreed with that claim.

And the Church ignored them.

 

[anthony022071]

That’s just it: we’re NOT saying that Constantinople was second to Rome. We’re saying that the Canon in question stated that Constaninople was SECOND, not EQUAL to Rome, and therefore Rome wasn’t protecting itself in rejecting the Canon in question.

Constantinople was not second to Rome in ecclesiastical matters either. That idea flatly contradicts the pronouncements of Damasus and Leo,and the opinion of the Alexandrian clergymen.

As I said earlier, “Constantinople was always considered Second to Rome” should be read as meaning “the Canons in question always claimed Constantinople was second to Rome, not equal to it”.

And that claim,along with the claim of C. ranking next after Rome in ecclesiastical matters,was never ratified by Pope Damasus and Pope Leo,so it was an illegitimate claim of some clergymen of C.

We’re not arguing for the “Second Place” status of Constantinople (which is really immaterial to the point, and what’s more Mardukm is himself Coptic, i.e. Alexandrian, and would be the last person supporting Constantinople’s claim here ), but rather pointing out the real reasons why Rome argued against the Canon.

It isn’t immaterial to the thread,because the thread is entitled “Papal authority vis a vis an ecumenical council”.
Canon 28 is an example of the pope using his authority to render null and void a decision of an ecumenical council. And it was his ratification of the council that made it ecumenical. After he vetoed the canon,there was doubt among the clergymen in the East as to whether the other decisions of the council itself were ratified (and therefore binding). The Emporer advised the pope to send a letter to the bishops saying that the council had been ratified.

“I have willingly complied, therefore, with what the most clement emperor thought necessary by sending a letter (Ep. 114) to all brothers who were present at the Council of Chalcedon to show thereby that the decisions taken by our holy brothers concerning the tenets of the Faith were pleasing to me. My doing so was naturally on account of those who want the decisions of the Council to appear weak and dubious, as an occasion for cloaking their own perfidy,on the grounds that decisions were not ratified by assenting opinion of mine,whereas I did dispatch a letter.” (Pope Leo, Ep. 117.)

Canon 28 was not recognized by the Eastern churches for 6 centuries,and the Greek historians of the 6th century do not mention the canon.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Can you also post the letters where Pope Leo complains that the diocese of Illyricum and Thessalonika, previously under Rome, have been attached to New Rome, and despite all Rome’s protest, the bishops there continued to submit themselves to Constantinople?

What have you been learning at EOPU (Eastern Orthodox Polemic University )? What is your source for this claim? The bishops of Thessalonica (who governed Illyricum) were in the Western Patriarchate, its bishops appointed by the Pope until the latter 8th century .

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

I know I said I was through debating you on this matter, but I really needed to tell you how grievously wrong you are in the following statement.

Alexandria was not some kind of autocephalous…church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[anthony022071]

Dear brother Anthony,

I know I said I was through debating you on this matter, but I really needed to tell you how grievously wrong you are in the following statement.

Blessings,
Marduk

Alright,so that’s what this disagreement boils down to – the idea that the churches of Alexandria and Antioch were like modern autocephalous,or sui juris,or Uniate churches.

The very idea of an autocephalous church is at odds with the idea of the one,catholic Church as it was understood by Ignatius,Irenaeus,Athanasius,Cyprian of Carthage,Vincent of Lerins,Cyril of Alexandria. If regional churches do not consider themselves accountable to the church of Rome (itself a local church but with a universal responsibility),then their “full communion with Rome” amounts only to the claim that they are currently in agreement with the fundamental doctrines of Rome. But should a heresy or nationalistic movement arise,or schism or usurpation of bishops happen,Rome would have no authority to intervene. If the pope is the Shepherd of the whole Church,as Peter was,then he must be allowed to excercize his authority over the whole Church. He must not only be a teacher,but a teacher with universal jurisdiction.

Autocephalic churches came into existence with the Schism,and the Uniate and sui juris Catholic churches are compromises with that schismatic heritage. They do not resemble the kind of “full communion” that the Eastern churches prior to the Schism had with Rome.

In case you missed it,see also post160.

 

[East_and_West]

Alright,so that’s what this disagreement boils down to – the idea that the churches of Alexandria and Antioch were like modern autocephalous,or sui juris,or Uniate churches.

The very idea of an autocephalous church is at odds with the idea of the one,catholic Church as it was understood by Ignatius,Irenaeus,Athanasius,Cyprian of Carthage,Vincent of Lerins,Cyril of Alexandria. If regional churches do not consider themselves accountable to the church of Rome (itself a local church but with a universal responsibility),then their “full communion with Rome” amounts only to the claim that they are currently in agreement with the fundamental doctrines of Rome. But should a heresy or nationalistic movement arise,or schism or usurpation of bishops happen,Rome would have no authority to intervene. If the pope is the Shepherd of the whole Church,as Peter was,then he must be allowed to excercize his authority over the whole Church. He must not only be a teacher,but a teacher with universal jurisdiction.

Autocephalic churches came into existence with the Schism,and the Uniate and sui juris Catholic churches are compromises with that schismatic heritage. They do not resemble the kind of “full communion” that the Eastern churches prior to the Schism had with Rome.

In case you missed it,see also post160.

Wow.

 

[Mickey]

the Uniate and sui juris Catholic churches are compromises with that schismatic heritage.

Wow indeed.

 

[Ghosty]

And that claim,along with the claim of C. ranking next after Rome in ecclesiastical matters,was never ratified by Pope Damasus and Pope Leo,so it was an illegitimate claim of some clergymen of C.

Brother, you’re arguing with the wrong person over the wrong thing.

Autocephalic churches came into existence with the Schism,and the Uniate and sui juris Catholic churches are compromises with that schismatic heritage. They do not resemble the kind of “full communion” that the Eastern churches prior to the Schism had with Rome.

Better let the Pope know, because for the last century and a half the Vatican has been pushing the opposite direction from what you’re proposing here.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

What have you been learning at EOPU (Eastern Orthodox Polemic University )? What is your source for this claim? The bishops of Thessalonica (who governed Illyricum) were in the Western Patriarchate, its bishops appointed by the Pope until the latter 8th century .

Blessings,
Marduk

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, article on Leo I believe.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

With all due respect, I think you’re missing the point.

The Canons in question always put Constantinople second to Rome, therefore when Rome objected it wasn’t doing so in order to protect its own power, but that of Alexandria.

The councils are not the final authority in the Church. All decisions made by a council must have the ratification of the pope to be valid. Councils don’t get to self-authorize themselves.
Had it not been for the veto power of the popes,the heretical Eastern councils could have defined Arianism or Monophysitism as doctrine for the Eastern churches.

Pope Damasus did not approve of canon 3 of Constantinople 1. He may not even have been made aware of it. In any case,he affirmed the traditional ordering of the apostolic sees in his Decretals of 382,the year after the council.

“Although all the catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront, not by the councilor decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: “You are Peter …(Matt 16:18-19).” In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name ‘Christians’ was first applied, as to a new people.” (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)

Pope Leo was not even aware of canon 3 of Constantinople 1 until after the council of Chalcedon ended. Canon 3 had never been ratified by the Pope Damasus so it could not be used to justify canon 28.

Canon 28 gave Rome’s “priviliges of honor” to Constantinople over Greece,the Black Sea region,and Asia (which in those times meant the whole of the Middle East,Arabia,and Egypt) to Constantinople. The infringement on the rights of Alexandria was also an infringement upon the jurisdiction of Rome,because Rome has responsibility,and therefore jurisdiction,over the whole Church. Alexandria was not some kind of autocephalous or sui juris church.

We’re not talking about whether or not Constantinople should have taken second place or not, but rather what the reasoning was behind Rome’s objection.

How can you say that when you and mardukm have claimed that Constantinople was second to Rome? Pope Damasus and Pope Leo disagreed with that claim.

To no effect (or consistency):

But what is more to the point is that the Papal legates most probably had already at this very council recognized the right of Constantinople to rank immediately after Rome. For at the very first session when the Acts of the Latrocinium were read, it was found that to Flavian, the Archbishop of Constantinople, was given only the fifth place. Against this the bishop protested and asked, “Why did not Flavian receive his position?” and the papal legate Paschasinus answered: “We will, please God, recognize the present bishop Anatolius of Constantinople as the first , but Dioscorus made Flavian the fifth.” It would seem to be in vain to attempt to escape the force of these words by comparing with them the statement made in the last session, in a moment of heat and indignation, by Lucentius the papal legate, that the canons of Constantinople were not found among those of the Roman Code. It may well be that this statement was true, and yet it does not in any way lessen the importance of the fact that at the first session (a very different thing from the sixteenth) Paschasinus had admitted that Constantinople enjoyed the second place. It would seem that Quesnel has proved his point, notwithstanding the attempts of the Ballerini to counteract and overthrow his arguments.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Canon 28 was not recognized by the Eastern churches for 6 centuries,and the Greek historians of the 6th century do not mention the canon.

Oh?
Justinian acknowledged the Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian rank of Constantinople in his CXXXIst Novel. (cap. j.), and the Synod in Trullo in canon xxxvj. renewed exactly canon xxviij. of Chalcedon. Moreover the Seventh Ecumenical with the approval of the Papal Legates gave a general sanction to all the canons accepted by the Trullan Synod. And finally in 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran in its Vth Canon acknowledged Constantinople’s rank as immediately after Rome, but this was while Constantinople was in the hands of the Latins!
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

 

[anthony022071]

Better let the Pope know, because for the last century and a half the Vatican has been pushing the opposite direction from what you’re proposing here.

Peace and God bless!

I’m sure the pope does know – it’s just a matter of historical facts.
The Uniate churches were formerly Orthodox and the Eastern sui juris churches were formerly in schism or out of communion with Rome (whether or not they now admit to it,or were aware of it).
The popes have definitely not been encouraging these churches to be autocephalous,but since the churches are long accustomed to be independent,the popes have to work with that schismatic heritage.

 

[anthony022071]

Can you also post the letters where Pope Leo complains that the diocese of Illyricum and Thessalonika, previously under Rome, have been attached to New Rome, and despite all Rome’s protest, the bishops there continued to submit themselves to Constantinople?

The pope didn’t have an army of his own to send to Illyricum and Thessalonika and get the bishops to submit to him.

Bishops are at liberty to disobey and become schismatic,just like a prince can betray his king and ally himself with another – but that is no proof against the pope’s traditional authority over the whole Church.

 

[anthony022071]

I should have said that autocephalic churches came into existence through schisms,not necessarily through the Great Schism.