Papal authority vis a vis an Ecumenical Council

[anthony022071]

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.

I don’t know if Pope Damasus knew about canon 3,but his decretal suggests that he knew what the clergy of Constantinople intended on usurping Alexandria and that they had a false notion of the origin of Roman see’s primacy. The clergy of Alexandria didn’t go along with canon 3,so what binding authority did it have?
A regional council can’t just change the ranking of the sees.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t know if Pope Damasus knew about canon 3,but his decretal suggests that he knew what the clergy of Constantinople intended on usurping Alexandria and that they had a false notion of the origin of Roman see’s primacy.

So canon 3 WASN’T shot down.

Canon 3 was a canon of the Ecumenical Church, not the local Church at Constantinople. What the clergy of Constantinople intended loses relevance as the Church world wide adopts it: both the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were represented. Constantinople was made independent at the council, and Jerusalem, made independent at Nicea, was not a patriarchate until Chalcedon (yes, this also contradicts Pope Leo, but is true:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xi.html

Also why was Jerusalem a suffragan to Caesarea? Hint: Caesarea was the capital of Palestine. those notions of the origin of primacy and patriarchal dignity)

And as I show in the link in my post above, it was Alexandria’s medling in Constantinople’s affairs, causing St. Gregory to resign as bishop of Constantinople, that brought matters to a head, not “usurping” clergy.

 

[anthony022071]

jimmy

< And just to clarify, your quote says, “in the west”. It was not a universal thing. >

Pope Leo’s Tome did have an equal place beside the council canons.

< Second, it says ‘equal’. It does not put the pope on the level he is now where he is above the council. >

Yes,the papal decretal letters had an equal place with council canons,but the pope himself had authority over councils. The fact that the Council of Chalcedon refers to the pope as their Head and Chief shows that the pope was above the council.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

jimmy

< And just to clarify, your quote says, “in the west”. It was not a universal thing. >

Pope Leo’s Tome did have an equal place beside the council canons.

< Second, it says ‘equal’. It does not put the pope on the level he is now where he is above the council. >

Yes,the papal decretal letters had an equal place with council canons,but the pope himself had authority over councils. The fact that the Council of Chalcedon refers to the pope as their Head and Chief shows that the pope was above the council.

This has been oft responded to:

1. But, finally, his Holiness says (p. ix. l.12) that the fourth Ecumenical Council (which by mistake he quite transfers from Chalcedon to Carthage), when it read the epistle of Pope Leo I, cried out, “Peter has thus spoken by Leo.” It was so indeed. But his Holiness ought not to overlook how, and after what examination, our fathers cried out, as they did, in praise of Leo. Since however his Holiness, consulting brevity, appears to have omitted this most necessary point, and the manifest proof that an Ecumenical Council is not only above the Pope but above any Council of his, we will explain to the public the matter as it really happened. Of more than six hundred fathers assembled in the Counci1 of Chalcedon, about two hundred of the wisest were appointed by the Council to examine both as to language and sense the said epistle of Leo; nor only so, but to give in writing and with their signatures their own judgment upon it, whether it were orthodox or not. These, about two hundred judgments and resolution on the epistle, as chiefly found in the Fourth Session of the said holy Council in such terms as the following:—“Maximus of Antioch in Syria said: 'The epistle of the holy Leo, Archbishop of Imperial Rome, agrees with the decisions of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers at Nice, and the hundred and fifty at Constantinople, which is new Rome, and with the faith expounded at Ephesus by the most holy Bishop Cyril: and I have subscribed it.”

And again:

“Theodoret,the most religious Bishop of Cyrus: 'The epistle of the most holy Archbishop, the lord Leo, agrees with the faith established at Nice by the holy and blessed fathers, and with the symbol of faith expounded at Constantinople by the hundred and fifty, and with the epistles of the blessed Cyril. And accepting it, I have subscribed the said epistle.”’

And thus all in succession: “The epistle corresponds,” "the epistle is consonant,“the epistle agrees in sense,” and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself: But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, “Peter has so spoken,” or anything of like honor, but this also, “Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church.”

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

 

[anthony022071]

So canon 3 WASN’T shot down.

It was. If Pope Damasus didn’t know about it,then he shot it down by accident with his decretal.

Canon 3 was a canon of the Ecumenical Church, not the local Church at Constantinople.

The council was not ecumenical,but regional,so the canon could not have had ecumenical authority either. Since the West didn’t participate in the council,it wasn’t ecumenical.

What the clergy of Constantinople intended loses relevance as the Church world wide adopts it: both the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were represented. Constantinople was made independent at the council, and Jerusalem, made independent at Nicea, was not a patriarchate until Chalcedon (yes, this also contradicts Pope Leo, but is true:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xi.html

Also why was Jerusalem a suffragan to Caesarea? Hint: Caesarea was the capital of Palestine. those notions of the origin of primacy and patriarchal dignity)

Yes?

And as I show in the link in my post above, it was Alexandria’s medling in Constantinople’s affairs, causing St. Gregory to resign as bishop of Constantinople, that brought matters to a head, not “usurping” clergy.

The council turned against Gregory after he advocated Paulinus to succeed him as bishop of Antioch,so as to conciliate the West. The bishops raised a technical objection to his translation from Salisma to Constantinople. That’s why he retired.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello

So canon 3 WASN’T shot down.

It was. If Pope Damasus didn’t know about it,then he shot it down by accident with his decretal.

By accident? Is this another refinement of the degrees of theological certitude that I’ve missed?

The two other patriarchates are reorganized, Alexandria to third, Antioch to fourth place. Constantinople was raised from suffragan to patriarchal status. The Church begins to opporate with this set up, and Rome doesn’t notice? Again, if Rome’s protest “shot it down,” it was ineffectual, as everyone proceeded based on the canon, e.g. Nestorius was treated as an autocephalous bishop at Ephesus.

Canon 3 was a canon of the Ecumenical Church, not the local Church at Constantinople.

The council was not ecumenical,but regional,so the canon could not have had ecumenical authority either. Since the West didn’t participate in the council,it wasn’t ecumenical.

CCC, from the Vatican web site:

195 The Niceno-Constantinopolitan or Nicene Creed draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from the first two ecumenical Councils (in 325 and 381). It remains common to all the great Churches of both East and West to this day.

242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is “consubstantial” with the Father, that is, one only God with him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381)

Might want to get your pope to fix that.

And as I show in the link in my post above, it was Alexandria’s medling in Constantinople’s affairs, causing St. Gregory to resign as bishop of Constantinople, that brought matters to a head, not “usurping” clergy.

The council turned against Gregory after he advocated Paulinus to succeed him as bishop of Antioch,so as to conciliate the West. The bishops raised a technical objection to his translation from Salisma to Constantinople. That’s why he retired.

Not just “bishops.” The bishops from Alexandria, as I stated, and the Macedonians (who would be condemned, although a former one of their number, St. Meletios, opened the council).

 

[anthony022071]

CCC, from the Vatican web site:

195 The Niceno-Constantinopolitan or Nicene Creed draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from the first two ecumenical Councils (in 325 and 381). It remains common to all the great Churches of both East and West to this day.

242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is “consubstantial” with the Father, that is, one only God with him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381)

Might want to get your pope to fix that.

As I’ve pointed out several times before on other threads,the Council of Constantinople 1 only came to be considered ecumenical at the time of the Council of Chalcedon,which in turn needed the approval of the pope to be ecumenically binding. Constantinople 1 was not considered an ecumenical council at the time of the Council of Ephesus.

 

[Hesychios]

As I’ve pointed out several times before on other threads,the Council of Constantinople 1 only came to be considered ecumenical at the time of the Council of Chalcedon,which in turn needed the approval of the pope to be ecumenically binding. Constantinople 1 was not considered an ecumenical council at the time of the Council of Ephesus.

It really does not make sense, and you are the first person to advance this idea that I know of.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As I’ve pointed out several times before on other threads,the Council of Constantinople 1 only came to be considered ecumenical at the time of the Council of Chalcedon,which in turn needed the approval of the pope to be ecumenically binding. Constantinople 1 was not considered an ecumenical council at the time of the Council of Ephesus.

Yes, and I have shown several times:

1. The Church treated Constantinople as second in rank, shown by the position of Nestorius, even though he was the heretic on trial. When the robber council (which preceded Chalcedon) tried to put Constantinople fifth, the papal legates objected, and stated that New Rome followed Old Rome.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html?highlight=constantinople#highlight’

also summarizes the futility of Rome to deny New Rome’s position, which even Rome recognizes, and has since her Lateran IV.

1. As the writings of St. Epiphanios shows, the version of the Creed as Constantinople was in circulation.
2. Now, as before, we say Nicene Creed when we mean Nicene-Constantinopolitan.
3. What about all the heretics deposed for holding to the Macedonian heresy? Should they have been restored until Chalcedon?

 

[tdgesq]

It really does not make sense, and you are the first person to advance this idea that I know of.

It may be the first time you’ve heard of it, but it is not a new idea:

This council was called in May, 381, by Emperor Theodosius, to provide for a Catholic succession in the patriarchal See of Constantinople, to confirm the Nicene Faith, to reconcile the semi-Arians with the Church, and to put an end to the Macedonian heresy.

Originally it was only a council of the Orient; the arguments of Baronius (ad an. 381, nos. 19, 20) to prove that it was called by Pope Damasus are invalid (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, Paris, 1908, II, 4).newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

Already from 382 onwards, in the synodical letter of the synod which met at Constantinople, the council of Constantinople was given the title of “ecumenical”. The word denotes a general and plenary council. But the council of Constantinople was criticised and censured by Gregory of Nazianzus. In subsequent years it was hardly ever mentioned. In the end it achieved its special status when the council of Chalcedon, at its second session and in its definition of the faith, linked the form of the creed read out at Constantinople with the Nicene form, as being a completely reliable witness of the authentic faith. The fathers of Chalcedon acknowledged the authority of the canons – at least as far as the eastern church was concerned – at their sixteenth session. The council’s dogmatic authority in the western church was made clear by words of Pope Gregory I: “I confess that I accept and venerate the four councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon) in the same way as I do the four books of the holy Gospel…”

The bishop of Rome’s approval was not extended to the canons, because they were never brought "to the knowledge of the apostolic see’’. Dionysius Exiguus knew only of the first four – the ones to be found in the western collections. Pope Nicholas I wrote of the sixth canon to Emperor Michael III: "It is not found among us, but is said to be in force among you’’.piar.hu/councils/ecum02.htm

What doesn’t make sense is insisting on the ecumenical status of what appears to be a local council, especially one that reorders the patriarchal hierarchy, without the approval of #1 in the hierarchy. That later on it was approved by him is beside the point as to whether it was ecumenical when it was first promulgated.

 

[jimmy]

You say that a pope had authority over a council but that does not line up with history. The fact is the pope Honorius was condemned by a council. The popes were not above the council. It is purely false to say that they were. Pope Zosimas wasn’t even considered to be above individual bishops otherwise the bishops would not have rejected his statement on semipelagianism.

 

[jimmy]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

The fact is that the whole Church except Rome accepted canon 28. Rome later accepted it and recognized its ecumenical nature at a post schism council(might have been Lyons).

I am not making a double standard. Why would the eastern bishops accept the councils post Nicea II? As I said above it is not simply about the bishops, it is about the entire Church. The entire Church did not accept the councils as ecumenical therefore they are not ecumenical. Why would they accept Florence or Lyons or the Vatican councils when these were councils purely of the west that anathematized the Greeks? They weren’t even in communion with Rome so of course they are not going to accept their councils as ecumenical. Regarding Nicea III it still doesn’t matter whether the bishops of the time accepted them. The east eventual rejected it as a whole. They would say that God guided the Church as a whole to reject it, not just the bishops of the time. The eastern bishops do not make a council ecumenical and neither does the bishop of Rome.

The Latin theology is that the pope is infallible and all are to submit to him. That is what they teach. Orthodoxy is defined by whether you are in communion with the pope. The authority of a council is the result of the popes authority. As the canon law says, the pope has the authority to excercise his authority individually of collegially. This is blatantly contradictory to all patristics, even the Latin patristics. And the Byzantines reject this idea.

 

[jimmy]

The council was not ecumenical,but regional,so the canon could not have had ecumenical authority either. Since the West didn’t participate in the council,it wasn’t ecumenical.

That is a poor arguement since Rome and all the west considered the council ecumenical and they have continued ever since the council to consider it ecumenical. They signed off on the council and they still sign off on it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Jimmy, I just noticed your editing of the post above. Thanks. Isa

It may be the first time you’ve heard of it, but it is not a new idea:

What doesn’t make sense is insisting on the ecumenical status of what appears to be a local council, especially one that reorders the patriarchal hierarchy, without the approval of #1 in the hierarchy. That later on it was approved by him is beside the point as to whether it was ecumenical when it was first promulgated.

Your link (where most of your post comes from it seems, also contains “A letter of the bishops gathered in Constantinople *,” addressed “To the most honoured lords and most reverend brethren and fellow-ministers, Damasus, Ambrose, Britton, Valerian, Acholius, Anemius, Basil, and the rest of the holy bishops who met in the great city of Rome: the sacred synod of orthodox bishops who met in the great city of Constantinople sends greetings in the Lord.” This states, in pertinent part,

“So much, in summary, for the faith which is openly preached by us. You can take even more heart concerning these matters if you think fit to consult the tome that was issued in Antioch by the synod which met there as well as the one issued last year in Constantinople by the ecumenical synod. **In these documents we confessed the faith in broader terms **and we have issued a written condemnation of the heresies which have recently erupted.”

It concludes "With regard to particular forms of administration in the churches, ancient custom, as you know, has been in force, along with the regulation of the saintly fathers at Nicaea, that in each province those of the province, and with them-should the former so desire – their neighbours, should conduct ordinations as need might arise. Accordingly, as you are aware, the rest of the churches are administered, and the priests = bishops] of the most prominent churches have been appointed, by us. Hence at the ecumenical council by common agreement and in the presence of the most God-beloved emperor Theodosius and all the clergy, and with the approval of the whole city, we have ordained the most venerable and God-beloved Nectarius as bishop of the church newly set up, as one might say, in Constantinople – a church which by God’s mercy we just recently snatched from the blasphemy of the heretics as from the lion’s jaws. Over the most ancient and truly apostolic church at Antioch in Syria, where first the precious name of “Christians” came into use, the provincial bishops and those of the diocese of the East came together and canonically ordained the most venerable and God-beloved Flavian as bishop with the consent of the whole church, as though it would give the man due honour with a single voice. The synod as a whole also accepted that this ordination was legal. We wish to inform you that the most venerable and God-beloved Cyril is bishop of the church in Jerusalem, the mother of all the churches. He was canonically ordained some time ago by those of the province and at various times he has valiantly combated the Arians.

We exhort your reverence to join us in rejoicing at what we have legally and canonically enacted."

Note, they did not ask approval, just rejoicing. Note also the order of the Sees. Flavian was elevated in direct opposition to Rome’s man, Paulinus (who ordained Jerome).

So much for the charge that Rome didn’t know until Chalcedon. Qui tacit consentit.*

 

[anthony022071]

Yes, and I have shown several times:

1. The Church treated Constantinople as second in rank, shown by the position of Nestorius, even though he was the heretic on trial. When the robber council (which preceded Chalcedon) tried to put Constantinople fifth, the papal legates objected, and stated that New Rome followed Old Rome.

The Church treated Constantinople as second in rank in what way? Constantinople was the political center of the Empire,so the see of Constantinople had an advantage that was not sacerdotal,but political.
As far as ecclesiastical ranking goes,Rome did not accept Constantinople as a patriarchate until after Alexandria and Antioch had been taken over by the Muslims in the early 700’s.
Alexandria did not accept canon 3 either. So if the traditional second ranking see did not accept it,how could Constantinople claim to be the second ranking see? That is just pride and arrogance.

 

[anthony022071]

That is a poor arguement since Rome and all the west considered the council ecumenical and they have continued ever since the council to consider it ecumenical. They signed off on the council and they still sign off on it.

As I keep saying,the council was not recognized,even in the East,as ecumenical until Chalcedon. At the Council of Ephesus,the creed of Nicaea was read,not the altered version of Constantinople. Pope Leo accepted the definitions of faith of Constantinople,but he rejected canon 3.

 

[jimmy]

As I keep saying,the council was not recognized,even in the East,as ecumenical until Chalcedon. At the Council of Ephesus,the creed of Nicaea was read,not the altered version of Constantinople. Pope Leo accepted the definitions of faith of Constantinople,but he rejected canon 3.

So how does this affect what was said? Leo might have rejected it but the rest of the Church did not. The council declared the canon. It is irrelevant whether it took a hundred years for it to be considered ecumenical. How does that affect it? It wasn’t Leo who declared it ecumenical. All this shows is that the eastern interpretation of councils is accurate. Bishops did not simply call an ecumenical council and automatically have an infallible council. Neither did the pope. The Ravenna document supports this fact.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Church treated Constantinople as second in rank in what way?

With rank came independence. She had been a suffragan to Heracleia. Nestorius was a metropolitan at Ephesus.

Some else has posted on a council of 394, where the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch attended, New Rome preciding.

Constantinople was the political center of the Empire,so the see of Constantinople had an advantage that was not sacerdotal,but political.

Of course Rome was never the political center of the Empire.

As far as ecclesiastical ranking goes,Rome did not accept Constantinople as a patriarchate until after Alexandria and Antioch had been taken over by the Muslims in the early 700’s.
Alexandria did not accept canon 3 either. So if the traditional second ranking see did not accept it,how could Constantinople claim to be the second ranking see? That is just pride and arrogance.

The the Catholic Church is proud and arrogant, because she conferred that honor in her Ecumenical Councils.

Jimmy has basically already answered this.

 

[anthony022071]

< So how does this affect what was said? Leo might have rejected it but the rest of the Church did not. >

How can you say that the rest of the Church accepted the canon,when obviously Alexandria did not accept it,and the Western churches were not aware of it? Antioch probably did not accept it either.

< The council declared the canon. It is irrelevant whether it took a hundred years for it to be considered ecumenical. How does that affect it? >

It affects it quite a bit. Since canon 3 was an attempt to raise Constantinople to second ranking,that was an affront to Alexandria,and an infringement on the traditional ordering of the sees. A canon like that would have to be accepted by the other local churches that it affects.

Even a heretical council can declare canons. But who decides if a council is legitimate? the laity? The laity of the early Church often held heretical opinions,just as they do in modern times. Since there were so many heretical bishops,some of them very popular,you can be sure that a large proportion of the laity were believers in heresy. The laity can be swayed by heretical winds just like they are swayed by political or nationalistic winds.

< It wasn’t Leo who declared it ecumenical. >

Chalcedon accepted Constantinople 1 as ecumenical,or at least its creed. And Pope Leo approved Chalcedon,except canon 28.

 

[jimmy]

< So how does this affect what was said? Leo might have rejected it but the rest of the Church did not. >

How can you say that the rest of the Church accepted the canon,when obviously Alexandria did not accept it,and the Western churches were not aware of it? Antioch probably did not accept it either.

< The council declared the canon. It is irrelevant whether it took a hundred years for it to be considered ecumenical. How does that affect it? >

It affects it quote a bit. Since canon 3 was an attempt to raise Constantinople to second ranking,that was an affront to Alexandria,and an infringement on the traditional ordering of the sees. A canon like that would have to be accepted by the other local churches that it affects.

Even a heretical council can declare canons. But who decides if a council is legitimate? the laity? The laity of the early Church often held heretical opinions,just as they do in modern times. Since there were so many heretical bishops,some of them very popular,you can be sure that a large proportion of the laity were believers in heresy. The laity can be swayed by heretical winds just like they are swayed by political or nationalistic winds.

< It wasn’t Leo who declared it ecumenical. >

Chalcedon accepted Constantinople 1 as ecumenical,or at least its creed. And Pope Leo approved Chalcedon,except canon 28.

Chalcedon wasn’t ecumenical because Leo accepted it. Leo’s approval is not what made it ecumenical.

Simply assuming that Antioch did not accept it is not going to work. Probably is not the same as saying they did not accept it.

You have this concept of infallibility that means basically that God shows up when the pope decides to call a council. God shows up to protect the council. It is almost magical. But from my perspective(as an eastern Catholic) it is far more phenomenological. We experience Gods presence throughout the whole of our lives as Christians. It is this presence that protects the Church from error, it is not some declaration by the pope that some council is infallibility. God guides every corner of the Church, not just the pope. Augustine says when discussing the indefectibility of the Church that there will always be some part of the Church that will maintain the truth in its fullest sense. Heresy will never affect all corners of the Church. He does not reference Rome for the indefectibility of the Church.

Well it was eventually accepted by all churches except for Rome if Rome did not accept it. Can you give the reference to where Leo did not accept canon III? I know he rejected canon 28 of Chalcedon but where does he reject canon 3 of Constantinople? The fact is that a council is not simply accepted by bishops of the time period that it was convened. It is accepted through the consciousness of the Church. It is accepted through Gods action within the Church.

It is possible that the majority of the people in a specific time will become heretical but it will not last. They cut themselves off from the Church. If it is a new heresy then the Church will call a council and make the decision.