Papal authority vis a vis an Ecumenical Council

[tdgesq]

Let’s take a look at the letter:

"So much, in summary, for the faith which is openly preached by us.

What is supposed to impress me about this language? You emphasized it so I take it you find it significant.

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.

Yes, the portion I quoted says the same thing - that whoever penned the letter called it an ecumenical synod. And? Here are a few more councils wherein ecumenical status is claimed:

The holy, great and universal synod, which was assembled by God’s will and the favour of our divinely approved emperors Basil and Constantine, the holy friends of Christ, in this royal and divinely protected city and in the most famous church bearing the name of holy and great Wisdom, declared the following. Constantinople IV.

*[T]he holy ecumenical Vatican council should be opened, and be declared to have been opened?

[They replied: Yes]* Vatican I.

These also must be ecumenical councils because they say so.

**In these documents we confessed the faith in broader terms **and we have issued a written condemnation of the heresies which have recently erupted."

Okay. I don’t know what you think this proves. Rome agrees with the creed - as expressed in Chalcedon that is.

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

I’m sure they did believe that. I doubt they thought they were illegally and uncanonically enacting those decrees.

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).

Wow. What a horrible misrepresentation. Here is the entire context of the relevant provision of the letter:

We exhort your reverence to join us in rejoicing at what we have legally and canonically enacted. Let spiritual love link us together, and let the fear of the Lord suppress all human prejudice and put the building up of the churches before individual attachment or favour. In this way, with the account of the faith agreed between us and with christian love established among us, we shall cease to declare what was condemned by the apostles, “I belong to Paul, I to Apollo, I to Cephas”; but we shall all be seen to belong to Christ, who has not been divided up among us; and with God’s good favour, we shall keep the body of the church undivided, and shall come before the judgment-seat of the Lord with confidence.

Of course, Rome hadn’t agreed to it because it wasn’t there, but Constantinople believed it would. Rome held a local council some years earlier to discuss the semi-Arian situation in the East. Constantinople knew about this council because it is mentioned in the opening sentence of the letter. In fact, it mentions the intent of Constantinople to have joined the Roman synod but for the aftermath of the Arian situation. The letter then mentions that certain representatives would be sent to Rome. I don’t know where you are getting the idea that Constantinople didn’t need to be in agreement with Rome. I invite people to read it for themselves: piar.hu/councils/ecum02.htm

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

I don’t believe the canons were ever part of the letter. It doesn’t appear the letter itself includes them. But even if it had, they were never confirmed by the Pope. I wonder if acquiescence by silence also applies to the filioque.

 

[tdgesq]

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).

So then the whole Church didn’t accept it, did they. And not just some tiny little corner of the Earth, the entire Roman Catholic Church. And I believe it’s Lateran IV and Florence.

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.

The entire Church didn’t accept canon 28 at Chalcedon. Obviously. The RCC did not accept it through either its delegates nor through Pope Leo himself. I can’t make it any clearer than that.

Why would they accept Florence or Lyons or the Vatican councils when these were councils purely of the west that anathematized the Greeks?

Florence stated exactly the opposite, that the Greeks and Rome had finally come into communion again. It’s decrees were signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople before he died.

They weren’t even in communion with Rome so of course they are not going to accept their councils as ecumenical.

Constantinople IV was decided pre-schism in 869-870. It was attended by the Patriarch of Constantinople the representatives of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem and, towards the end, the representatives of the Patriarch of Alexandria. Some Ignatian bishops also attended.

Regarding Nicea III it still doesn’t matter whether the bishops of the time accepted them. The east eventual rejected it as a whole.

There is no such council called Nicea III; at least that I know of.

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.

Then what does? The entire Church? Apparently the entire Church doesn’t include the Roman Catholic Church for you.

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.

I still don’t agree with how you’ve represented our theology. But none of that explains how from your view a council can be one of the entire Church when the RCC disagrees with it. As for your charge that what Roman Catholics do believe blatantly contradicts our patristic history, and that the Byzantines outright reject it:

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 . . . .

Also, in future I will always hold, confess, preach and teach whatever the holy Roman church holds, confesses, teaches and preaches and I reject, anathematize and condemn whatever she rejects, anathematizes and condemns; in future I will always reject, anathematize and condemn especially the impieties and blasphemies of the most wicked heresiarch Nestorius and every other heresy raising its head against this holy catholic and apostolic church . . . .

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. Council of Florence, SESSION 14 7 August 1445. piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Let’s take a look at the letter:

What is supposed to impress me about this language? You emphasized it so I take it you find it significant.

The claim was made that Rome didn’t know what was going on in the East. I also quoted the letter:

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

(btw, thanks, I never noticed the indent feature before).

They didn’t hide what they were doing. It was common knowledge, and the letter directs the Western bishops, several named, to consult the documents. At best, Rome can claim willful ignorance of Constantinople.

Yes, the portion I quoted says the same thing - that whoever penned the letter called it an ecumenical synod. And? Here are a few more councils wherein ecumenical status is claimed:

The holy, great and universal synod, which was assembled by God’s will and the favour of our divinely approved emperors Basil and Constantine, the holy friends of Christ, in this royal and divinely protected city and in the most famous church bearing the name of holy and great Wisdom, declared the following. Constantinople IV.

Unfortunately, Constantinople IV (880) reversed the latrocinium you cite (870). Pope Leo’s representatives were there, with those of all 5 patriarchates, and he confirmed the decree of the First-Second Council Constantinople IV. Only around 1054 did you revert and exchange 880 for 870: your pope was embroiled in the investitute contraversy, and needed canon 22 of the latrocinium. But since that council was invalidated, it posed a problem (if it were valid, your Lateran I would not have been necessary).

(We should add here that the Minutes of the Ignatian Council (869/70), which have not survived in the original, are found in two edited versions: Mansi, vol. xvi: 16-208 (Latin) and xvi: 308-420 (Greek) and differ considerably from each other. On this and for a full description of the 10 Acts of these Minutes see Siamakis, op. cit. pp. 54-75. It is important to recall here that this Council was most irregular in its composition, since it included false legates from Alexandria and Jerusalem, more royal lay people than bishops (only 12) at the start and during the first two sessions. Eventually 130 bishops are mentioned in the Minutes but only 84 actually appear signing (op. cit. p. 56f). Most important irregularity, however, was the fact that the Minutes were mutilated at the most crucial points, especially the section of the condemnation of the Filioque (op. cit. p. 74)
geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html)

*[T]he holy ecumenical Vatican council should be opened, and be declared to have been opened?

[They replied: Yes]* Vatican I.

These also must be ecumenical councils because they say so.

The iconoclast council of Hereira also claimed Ecumenical status. But then, we don’t agree (Rome and us) on that. We do agree in Constantinople I’s claims to be Ecumenical, don’t you?

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Okay. I don’t know what you think this proves. Rome agrees with the creed - as expressed in Chalcedon that is.

The letter gives them a summary, and directs them to further documents for information). If Rome dawdled to Chalcedon, that’s Rome’s fault.

I’m sure they did believe that. I doubt they thought they were illegally and uncanonically enacting those decrees.

And since your popes and your councils have finally agreed to ALL their acts (including canon 3), you should believe that too.

Wow. What a horrible misrepresentation.

I am going to assume you misunderstood what I wrote.

Of course, Rome hadn’t agreed to it because it wasn’t there, but Constantinople believed it would. Rome held a local council some years earlier to discuss the semi-Arian situation in the East. Constantinople knew about this council because it is mentioned in the opening sentence of the letter. In fact, it mentions the intent of Constantinople to have joined the Roman synod but for the aftermath of the Arian situation. The letter then mentions that certain representatives would be sent to Rome. I don’t know where you are getting the idea that Constantinople didn’t need to be in agreement with Rome. I invite people to read it for themselves: piar.hu/councils/ecum02.htm

Which is my point: Constantinople announced that they were in agreement (hence the referenc to Rome’s council, which by the way I’ve never heard claimed as being ecumenical, as opposed to Constantinople I). They didn’t seek ratificition of the agreement. If Rome had any questions on the agreement, she was directed to the documents of the Council themselves. We see no statements of disagreement from Rome. Qui tacit concentit.

The Fathers of Constantinople had to be in agreement with the Faith, not Rome. Happily at the time, Rome confessed the Faith.

I don’t believe the canons were ever part of the letter. It doesn’t appear the letter itself includes them. But even if it had, they were never confirmed by the Pope. I wonder if acquiescence by silence also applies to the filioque.

It perhaps would, if anybody had known about it.

The filioque was inserted off in the corner of Spain, outside the Roman empire at the time. It spread among the Franks, barbarians outside the empire. Rome, let alone, the East didn’t know of it for quite some time.

It had been infiltrating in the West outside of liturgy, and when it apparently showed up in an episitle sent from Rome to Constantinople, it was objected to then and there, and St. Maximus suggested to the Latins that they change the language (apparently, it had been explained to him as “through the Son”). When they didn’t, and tried to impose it in Bulgaria, and then Moravia (where they succeeded by suppressing the missionaries sent by Constantinople, with Rome’s approval, at the request of Moravia’s prince), it became standard issue from St. Photios onward.

And Rome’s reaction when the Franks demanded it at the Council of Aachen 809?

Leo forbade the addition of “filioque” to Nicene Creed which was added by Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of The Orthodox Faith)(VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26).

It was not until the Franks, and then the Saxon empire conquored the Roman empire in the West that it was imposed on Rome. A German pope, Leo IX, demanded it from the Orthodox Catholics and 1054 ensued.

Btw, at the council of Constantinople 394, the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were present, but the bishop of Constantinople, persuant to canon 3, presided. The patriarch of Antioch, Flavian, had been appointed by Constantinople I, despite Rome (and Alexandria) supporting Paulinus as patriarch. By 394 both Paulinus and his line had died out, and Rome would recognize Flavian (again, late) in 399.
newadvent.org/fathers/3817.htm

 

[Isa_Almisry]

< 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.

Chalcedon accepted Constantinople and its canons, and explictly says so.

Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out–the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome – **we issue the same decree and resolution **concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.
piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm#CANONS

Rome may have protested, but the canon was followed nonetheless. And at your Lateran IV (and then Florence) your popes Innocent and Eugene bowed to the will of the Church and recognized it.

Your comparision to heretical canons is inopposite, unless you reject Chalcedon as heretical.

And as mentioned above, Alexandria recognized the work of Constantinople I appointing Flavian to Antioch’s see (who of course agreeed to the council) and at the Council of Constantinople (394) the Pope of Alexandria being present, agreed to Constantinople’s rank, and her bishop to preside at the Council.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So then the whole Church didn’t accept it, did they. And not just some tiny little corner of the Earth, the entire Roman Catholic Church. And I believe it’s Lateran IV and Florence.

Correct on naming your councils, which accepted Constantinople I c. 3 and Chalcedon c. 28 de jure, what had been both de jure and de facto the state of affairs since the Councils (as shown by Constantiople (394)).

The entire Church didn’t accept canon 28 at Chalcedon. Obviously. The RCC did not accept it through either its delegates nor through Pope Leo himself. I can’t make it any clearer than that.

You just mentioned Lateran IV and Florence. Maybe you aren’t clear on them.

Florence stated exactly the opposite, that the Greeks and Rome had finally come into communion again. It’s decrees were signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople before he died.

…stating that a synod in the East would have to ratify it, which never happened.

Constantinople IV was decided pre-schism in 869-870. It was attended by the Patriarch of Constantinople the representatives of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem and, towards the end, the representatives of the Patriarch of Alexandria. Some Ignatian bishops also attended.

Very few bishops of any sort attended, opening and proceeding with only 12. The representatives from Alexandria etc. were false.

Constantinople IV was decided pre-schism in 879-80. It invalidated the first part of C IV. It wasn’t revived in the West until she needed c. 22 of the first part in her investiture contraversy (had the council been valid, Lateran I would not have been necessary).

Then what does? The entire Church? Apparently the entire Church doesn’t include the Roman Catholic Church for you.

As Rome in the very least has belatedly approved all what is here in question, evidently the entire has for you.

I still don’t agree with how you’ve represented our theology. But none of that explains how from your view a council can be one of the entire Church when the RCC disagrees with it. As for your charge that what Roman Catholics do believe blatantly contradicts our patristic history, and that the Byzantines outright reject it:

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 . . . .

Also, in future I will always hold, confess, preach and teach whatever the holy Roman church holds, confesses, teaches and preaches and I reject, anathematize and condemn whatever she rejects, anathematizes and condemns; in future I will always reject, anathematize and condemn especially the impieties and blasphemies of the most wicked heresiarch Nestorius and every other heresy raising its head against this holy catholic and apostolic church . . . .

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. Council of Florence, SESSION 14 7 August 1445. piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm

This seems an intra-Maronite debate, so I’ll stand aside, just to state the Jimmy has correctly stated that Rome protested perhaps, but the Church moved on, and later Rome caught up with the rest of us.

 

[tdgesq]

They didn’t hide what they were doing. It was common knowledge, and the letter directs the Western bishops, several named, to consult the documents. At best, Rome can claim willful ignorance of Constantinople.

Common knowledge of what? That they held a local council just as Antioch did. And one that supposedly was to agree with the tome already issued by the council at Rome; a council that Constantinople would have attended had it not been for their own internal problems with the semi-Arians, which is what this council was supposed to resolve.

Yes, its promulgations and decrees were so little known that no copy of the councils doctrinal decisions have survived. There is no record of it’s canons in the west until long after the council was held, and then only the first four canons. As mentioned by the same article: “But the council of Constantinople was criticised and censured by Gregory of Nazianzus. In subsequent years it was hardly ever mentioned.” At best Rome can claim what history demonstrates, that this was an isolated local council the decrees of which most of the Christian world didn’t know about. If Rome did know about its decrees, then you are right, it ignored them.

Unfortunately, Constantinople IV (880) reversed the latrocinium you cite (870). Pope Leo’s representatives were there, with those of all 5 patriarchates, and he confirmed the decree of the First-Second Council Constantinople IV. Only around 1054 did you revert and exchange 880 for 870:

I’ve seen you make this claim before, and you never offered any evidence for it. Oh the council of 880 certainly occurred, but Schaff and Warren Carroll both disagree with you about Rome’s consent.

(We should add here that the Minutes of the Ignatian Council (869/70), which have not survived in the original, are found in two edited versions: Mansi, vol. xvi: 16-208 (Latin) and xvi: 308-420 (Greek) and differ considerably from each other. On this and for a full description of the 10 Acts of these Minutes see Siamakis, op. cit. pp. 54-75. It is important to recall here that this Council was most irregular in its composition, since it included false legates from Alexandria and Jerusalem, more royal lay people than bishops (only 12) at the start and during the first two sessions. Eventually 130 bishops are mentioned in the Minutes but only 84 actually appear signing (op. cit. p. 56f). Most important irregularity, however, was the fact that the Minutes were mutilated at the most crucial points, especially the section of the condemnation of the Filioque (op. cit. p. 74)
geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html)

So this is your evidence. An article from Fr. Dragas from T.R. Valentines apologetics site. Fr. Dragas as well as Valentine propose that the Council of 880 is the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Not even the most hardened Orthodox agree with them. I have debated numerous Orthodox here who have categorically rejected their analyses, insisting that there are only Seven Ecumenical Councils. So who do you agree with?

The iconoclast council of Hereira also claimed Ecumenical status. But then, we don’t agree (Rome and us) on that. We do agree in Constantinople I’s claims to be Ecumenical, don’t you?

My point exactly. Just because it’s stated to be so in the Conciliar documents doesn’t make it the case. Much less because that claim is made a later letter, the conciliar documents themselves no longer existing like with Constantinople I. It was a local council until the entire Church did accept it, not in spite of that acceptance. So yes, I accept it as ecumenical.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Common knowledge of what? That they held a local council just as Antioch did. And one that supposedly was to agree with the tome already issued by the council at Rome; a council that Constantinople would have attended had it not been for their own internal problems with the semi-Arians, which is what this council was supposed to resolve.

And it did.

Yes, its promulgations and decrees were so little known that no copy of the councils doctrinal decisions have survived. There is no record of it’s canons in the west until long after the council was held, and then only the first four canons. As mentioned by the same article: “But the council of Constantinople was criticised and censured by Gregory of Nazianzus. In subsequent years it was hardly ever mentioned.” At best Rome can claim what history demonstrates, that this was an isolated local council the decrees of which most of the Christian world didn’t know about. If Rome did know about its decrees, then you are right, it ignored them.

The patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch followed the decrees as Constantinople presided at the council there in 394.

As for known, the “New Catholic Encyclopedia” article on this council notes that its form of the Creed was one from Palestine, approved by Alexandria at her council of 362, was recited by Nectarius as he was baptized and ordained to second place in what would become the pentarchy (Jerusalem was not yet autocephalous).

I’ve seen you make this claim before, and you never offered any evidence for it. Oh the council of 880 certainly occurred, but Schaff and Warren Carroll both disagree with you about Rome’s consent.

The fact that the canons survive only in multilated translation is suspicious. And if it was valid, its canons would make Lateran I superfluous.

So this is your evidence. An article from Fr. Dragas from T.R. Valentines apologetics site. Fr. Dragas as well as Valentine propose that the Council of 880 is the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Not even the most hardened Orthodox agree with them. I have debated numerous Orthodox here who have categorically rejected their analyses, insisting that there are only Seven Ecumenical Councils. So who do you agree with?

Not Ecumenical, but Pan-Orthodox. No Orthodox denies the council, just how exalted is its status.

My point exactly. Just because it’s stated to be so in the Conciliar documents doesn’t make it the case. Much less because that claim is made a later letter, the conciliar documents themselves no longer existing like with Constantinople I. It was a local council until the entire Church did accept it, not in spite of that acceptance. So yes, I accept it as ecumenical.

The documents don’t survive for Nicea either (and also the text transmission of the canons is also problematic). Do you question that the Church excepted it?

 

[tdgesq]

The letter gives them a summary, and directs them to further documents for information). If Rome dawdled to Chalcedon, that’s Rome’s fault.

People will just have to read the letter for themselves and make up their own minds. First you want to say that Constantinople made it ecumenical by their own decree without the agreement of Rome, even though the letter states that they believe Rome was in agreement. Then you want to say that Rome should have objected if it didn’t think it was ecumenical. What difference would that have made? None according to you. Everything we have from history demonstrates that it is unlikely Rome saw the decrees, and if it did it ignored them. I find that to lead to the opposite conclusion that you reach. It was a local council that Rome didn’t affirm.

And since your popes and your councils have finally agreed to ALL their acts (including canon 3), you should believe that too.

I do. The question isn’t whether it is now an ecumenical council, the question is when it became ecumenical and binding on the whole Church. Not until Rome agreed.

I am going to assume you misunderstood what I wrote. Which is my point: Constantinople announced that they were in agreement (hence the referenc to Rome’s council, which by the way I’ve never heard claimed as being ecumenical, as opposed to Constantinople I). They didn’t seek ratificition of the agreement. If Rome had any questions on the agreement, she was directed to the documents of the Council themselves. We see no statements of disagreement from Rome. Qui tacit concentit.

No I didn’t misunderstand. I’m not accusing you of intentional misrepresentation, but misrepresentation nonetheless. The “faith agreed between us” is the faith between Constantinople and Rome, not the faith as determined between the Bishops at the local council that did not include Rome. Here it is again:

In this way, with the account of the faith agreed between us and with christian love established among us, we shall cease to declare what was condemned by the apostles, “I belong to Paul, I to Apollo, I to Cephas”; but we shall all be seen to belong to Christ, who has not been divided up among us; and with God’s good favour, we shall keep the body of the church undivided, and shall come before the judgment-seat of the Lord with confidence.

I have no doubt that Constantinople believed that Rome agreed with it. However, there is no evidence that Rome did, other than your argument from silence, which is historically more likely a function of never having received the doctrinal documents or having ignored them as those of local council dealing with their own internal problems.

The Fathers of Constantinople had to be in agreement with the Faith, not Rome. Happily at the time, Rome confessed the Faith.

Councils cannot be ecumenical unless the Church agrees with it. I’m sure that many individuals throughout the world have spoken the Faith truly. It does not make their declaration ecumenical. The Church must agree. Of course you along with many of the Orthodox make a special exception if it’s just the RCC that does not consent.

It perhaps would, if anybody had known about it.

The filioque was inserted off in the corner of Spain, outside the Roman empire at the time. It spread among the Franks, barbarians outside the empire. Rome, let alone, the East didn’t know of it for quite some time.

I don’t believe that to be historically accurate. But it is probably outside of the scope of this discussion. A new thread might be in order.

 

[tdgesq]

You just mentioned Lateran IV and Florence. Maybe you aren’t clear on them.

Yes, I’m clear on them, are you?

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.piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm#The%20dignity%20of%20the%20patriarchal%20sees

We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights. SESSION 6 6 July 1439. piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm

…stating that a synod in the East would have to ratify it, which never happened.

Yes, after they agreed to it and the Patriarch of Constantinople signed the decree between Rome and the Greeks. Then a newfound Greek prerogative was suddenly created. No go until we get approval at one of our synods. Of course when Rome’s legates and Pope Leo himself refuse to agree with canon 28 of Chalcedon, no such prerogative exists. Like I said, it is a double standard of monumental proportions.

Constantinople IV was decided pre-schism in 879-80. It invalidated the first part of C IV. It wasn’t revived in the West until she needed c. 22 of the first part in her investiture contraversy (had the council been valid, Lateran I would not have been necessary).

So you say. I’ll need more than your word on that though.

As Rome in the very least has belatedly approved all what is here in question, evidently the entire has for you.

The point stands. Rome supposedly has primacy of honor, but in practice among some of the East it has less standing than any of the other Patriarchates. The prerogatives afforded to the Eastern Prelates when it comes to what constitutes an ecumenical council are simply not afforded to the Bishop of Rome. I understand that many are angry at Rome’s claims to Petrine Primacy and don’t believe them. That is hardly a justification for this kind of hypocrisy though.

 

[anthony022071]

anthony022071;3087806:

Chalcedon accepted Constantinople and its canons, and explictly says so.

And canon 28 of Chalcedon,which starts off with a reference to canon 3 of Constantinople 1,was vetoed by the pope and made null and void.

< Rome may have protested, but the canon was followed nonetheless. And at your Lateran IV (and then Florence) your popes Innocent and Eugene bowed to the will of the Church and recognized it. >

Must I point out yet again that Rome only accepted Constantinople as a patriarchate after Alexandria and Antioch had fallen to the Muslims? And even then the bishops of Constantinople were to be obedient to the pope.

< CANON 5
Summary. The council approves the existing order of the patriarchal sees and affirm, three of their privileges: their bishops may confer the pallium and may have the cross borne before them, and appeals may be taken to them.

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree with the approval of the holy and ecumenical council, that after the Roman Church, which by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, that of Constantinople shall hold first place, that of Alexandria second, that of Antioch third, and that of Jerusalem fourth, the dignity proper to each to be observed; so that after their bishops have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the distinguishing mark of the plenitude of the pontifical office, and have taken the oath of fidelity and obedience to him, they may also lawfully bestow the pallium upon their suffragans, receiving from them the canonical profession of faith for themselves, and for the Roman Church the pledge of obedience. They may have the standard of the cross borne before them everywhere, except in the city of Rome and wherever the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of Apostolic dignity is present. In all provinces subject to their jurisdiction appeals may be taken to them when necessary, saving the appeals directed to the Apostolic See, which must be humbly respected. >

< Your comparision to heretical canons is inopposite, unless you reject Chalcedon as heretical. >

Rome accepted the canons of Chalcedon,except canon 28.
Rome never accepted heretical canons,like the Eastern bishops and laity sometimes did.
That is the difference between Rome and the Eastern clergy.
Rome always upheld the orthodox canons of Nicaea,Ephesus and Chalcedon,whereas the Eastern bishops and laity did not always do so.

 

[anthony022071]

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

The local churches were never independent,except when they turned heretical.
The independence of churches would be antithetical to catholity and communion. There is only one true Catholic Church,and all local churches are subsumed under it,not merely in orthodoxy of faith but also in jurisdiction,with the pope as the final authority.
If the churches had been independent then no council coulf ever be claimed to be ecumenically binding. An ecumenical council presupposes a Church in which there is jurisdiction over the whole. A group of bishops gathered together who are equal in authority can’t shepherd the whole Church;only one man who has primacy over all can do that.

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

By the time that Christians in Rome were tolerated by law,it wasn’t. And it’s a good thing for the Roman Church that the capitol was moved to Constantinople,because the authority of the Roman Church was never conflated with imperial power. It must have been the wisdom of God that the capitol was moved.

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

It wasn’t the Catholic Church,but primarily Greek bishops attempting to exalt themselves.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

The local churches were never independent,except when they turned heretical.
The independence of churches would be antithetical to catholity and communion. There is only one true Catholic Church,and all local churches are subsumed under it,not merely in orthodoxy of faith but also in jurisdiction,with the pope as the final authority.
If the churches had been independent then no council coulf ever be claimed to be ecumenically binding. An ecumenical council presupposes a Church in which there is jurisdiction over the whole. A group of bishops gathered together who are equal in authority can’t shepherd the whole Church;only one man who has primacy over all can do that.

And yet we still do the impossible. Just let’s take your date of our origin 1054: nearly a thousand years without centrifical centralization, and yet one Faith, one Church. And nothing comparable to the Great Western Schism.

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

By the time that Christians in Rome were tolerated by law,it wasn’t. And it’s a good thing for the Roman Church that the capitol was moved to Constantinople,because the authority of the Roman Church was never conflated with imperial power. It must have been the wisdom of God that the capitol was moved.

The pope filled in for the emperor. Hence the Papal States.

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

It wasn’t the Catholic Church,but primarily Greek bishops attempting to exalt themselves.

Since the bishops in question were not all the EP (and at Constantinople I, the EP Gregory resigned rather than become a source of dissention, not exactly trying to exalt himself. His successor Nectarius was only a cathecumen, and was drafted rather than sought the position), how were they exalting themselves by exalting the EP? In particular the bishops from outside of Constantinople?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes, I’m clear on them, are you?

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.piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm#The%20dignity%20of%20the%20patriarchal%20sees

We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.

Also, renewing the order of the other patriarchs which has been handed down in the canons, the patriarch of Constantinople should be second after the most holy Roman pontiff, third should be the patriarch of Alexandria, fourth the patriarch of Antioch, and fifth the patriarch of Jerusalem, without prejudice to all their privileges and rights. SESSION 6 6 July 1439. piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm

I boldfaced what the Ecumenical Councils said, and underlined what appears only after 1054 at Rome’s councils, e.g. no patriarch, except for Mennas, received his pallium from Rome. None.

Yes, after they agreed to it and the Patriarch of Constantinople signed the decree between Rome and the Greeks. Then a newfound Greek prerogative was suddenly created. No go until we get approval at one of our synods. Of course when Rome’s legates and Pope Leo himself refuse to agree with canon 28 of Chalcedon, no such prerogative exists. Like I said, it is a double standard of monumental proportions.

No, the Ecumenical Councils went through similar procedures. Just Florence never succeeded.

So you say. I’ll need more than your word on that though.

Why the Investiture Controversy, if you had a perfectly valid council that dealt with it?

The point stands. Rome supposedly has primacy of honor, but in practice among some of the East it has less standing than any of the other Patriarchates. The prerogatives afforded to the Eastern Prelates when it comes to what constitutes an ecumenical council are simply not afforded to the Bishop of Rome. I understand that many are angry at Rome’s claims to Petrine Primacy and don’t believe them. That is hardly a justification for this kind of hypocrisy though.

No, Constantinople’s heresy (joined by Rome) of Monotheletism got nowhere. The same with Constantinople’s icononclasm. No other see (except now the EP) has claimed that ITS imprematur must be, separate from the question of the whole Church’s, secured.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry;3088407:

anthony022071;3087806:

Chalcedon accepted Constantinople and its canons, and explictly says so.

And canon 28 of Chalcedon,which starts off with a reference to canon 3 of Constantinople 1,was vetoed by the pope and made null and void.

And yet the Church followed it.

< Rome may have protested, but the canon was followed nonetheless. And at your Lateran IV (and then Florence) your popes Innocent and Eugene bowed to the will of the Church and recognized it. >

Must I point out yet again that Rome only accepted Constantinople as a patriarchate after Alexandria and Antioch had fallen to the Muslims? And even then the bishops of Constantinople were to be obedient to the pope.

You mean after only after Constantinople fell to the Crusaders. Of course they were to be obedient to Rome, she installed them. That is until the Orthodox retook New Rome.

< Your comparision to heretical canons is inopposite, unless you reject Chalcedon as heretical. >

Rome accepted the canons of Chalcedon,except canon 28.
Rome never accepted heretical canons,like the Eastern bishops and laity sometimes did.
That is the difference between Rome and the Eastern clergy.
Rome always upheld the orthodox canons of Nicaea,Ephesus and Chalcedon,whereas the Eastern bishops and laity did not always do so.

Can you provide examples?

 

[jimmy]

Rome accepted the canons of Chalcedon,except canon 28.
Rome never accepted heretical canons,like the Eastern bishops and laity sometimes did.
That is the difference between Rome and the Eastern clergy.
Rome always upheld the orthodox canons of Nicaea,Ephesus and Chalcedon,whereas the Eastern bishops and laity did not always do so.

So Rome is immune to heresy? Do I have to remind you of Pope Honorius who was anathematized by an ecumenical council? Do I have to remind you of Pope Zosimas who supported semi-pelagianism? Rome is not immune to heresy and has espoused heresies in the past. To say otherwise is to avoid the truth.

 

[jimmy]

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

The local churches were never independent,except when they turned heretical.
The independence of churches would be antithetical to catholity and communion. There is only one true Catholic Church,and all local churches are subsumed under it,not merely in orthodoxy of faith but also in jurisdiction,with the pope as the final authority.
If the churches had been independent then no council coulf ever be claimed to be ecumenically binding. An ecumenical council presupposes a Church in which there is jurisdiction over the whole. A group of bishops gathered together who are equal in authority can’t shepherd the whole Church;only one man who has primacy over all can do that.

No it doesn’t. A council presupposes equality of authority. It presuposes that all bishops are of equal authority otherwise there would be no need for a council, the pope would just legislate. The pope never had authority over eastern bishops. The patristic theologians of the Catholic Church will tell you this including Yves Congar, a Catholic priest. The papacy was a development of the west.

 

[Hesychios]

<Chalcedon accepted Constantinople and its canons, and explictly says so. >

And canon 28 of Chalcedon,which starts off with a reference to canon 3 of Constantinople 1,was vetoed by the pope and made null and void.

This is simply not true.

The most the Patriarch of old Rome could do is refuse to recognize it in protest. It had full force and effect in the east between the four patriarchates.

Rome may have protested, but the canon was followed nonetheless. And at your Lateran IV (and then Florence) your popes Innocent and Eugene bowed to the will of the Church and recognized it.

Must I point out yet again that Rome only accepted Constantinople as a patriarchate after Alexandria and Antioch had fallen to the Muslims? And even then the bishops of Constantinople were to be obedient to the pope.

Not the reason, sorry.

The dates of the fall of each city?
Alexandria 641AD

Antioch 638AD

The sixth, seventh and eight Ecumenical Councils were to follow.

The Fourth Lateran general Council of the west took place in 1215AD. After the occupation of Constantinople by crusaders and the placement of a Latin puppet Patriarch on the throne, appointed by the Pope and imposed upon the Greeks. The crusading powers did not yet control Alexandria at this time (and never succeeded, although the Pope appointed a Latin Patriarch for that city as well), so it was easy to finally reverse itself and " Renew… the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees" which only needed renewing from 1204AD, when the crusaders took the city.

< CANON 5
Summary. The council approves the existing order of the patriarchal sees and affirm, three of their privileges: their bishops may confer the pallium and may have the cross borne before them, and appeals may be taken to them.

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree with the approval of the holy and ecumenical council, that after the Roman Church, which by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, that of Constantinople shall hold first place, that of Alexandria second, that of Antioch third, and that of Jerusalem fourth, the dignity proper to each to be observed… >

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

The local churches were never independent,except when they turned heretical.
The independence of churches would be antithetical to catholity and communion. There is only one true Catholic Church,and all local churches are subsumed under it,not merely in orthodoxy of faith but also in jurisdiction,with the pope as the final authority.

Wrong again!

This is historic revisionism. You are being anachronistic and I do not believe your sources actually state these things as much as allow you to misinterpret the historical facts.

Please remember, what might be true of the Roman Catholic church today was not necessarily the case in those days and times, and certainly not in this case.

{continued below}

 

[Hesychios]

{continued from above}

“Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees”

Please read the Ancient canons as written.

Canon 28

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God* (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

• 150 Fathers in New Rome? Council of Constantinople, Canon #3
  To wit:
  ** The bishop of Constantinople is to be honoured next after the bishop of Rome.**

Michael

 

[anthony022071]

So Rome is immune to heresy? Do I have to remind you of Pope Honorius who was anathematized by an ecumenical council? Do I have to remind you of Pope Zosimas who supported semi-pelagianism? Rome is not immune to heresy and has espoused heresies in the past. To say otherwise is to avoid the truth.

Not even Honorius was manifestly heretical,despite the anathemas against him.

catholic-legate.com/articles/honorius.html

< The claim that Honorius was a Monothelite came from this text written to Sergius:

“Wherefore we acknowledge one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin.” (15)

Another source translates it: “We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our [human] nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall.” (16)

Now stop and reflect carefully on these texts. Honorius clearly does not say Christ possesses merely one will, which happens to be divine. Rather, Honorius states that Christ has only one human will as opposed to two human wills. Furthermore, notice how Honorius agrees with Sergius and “acknowledges one will of our Lord…” yet he goes on to discuss this one will in terms of Jesus’ humanity only. Now why would Honorius speak against the existence of two human wills? The answer lies with Sergius’ inquiry. He had deceptively suggested the orthodox view (i.e. one human will) in order to establish a false context where Honorius would confirm the heretical position of “one will” in total. He could then use the Pope’s concurrence to further the Monothelite heresy. >

< His second successor, Pope John IV (642), confirmed Honorius’ intention, stating that Honorius’ purpose was to simply “deny contrary [human] wills of mind and flesh.” (5) This was later confirmed by the Abbot John, who was a scribe and the secretary to Honorius: “We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity or humanity, but of his humanity solely.” (6) St. Maximus “the Hammer”, Doctor of the Church and Martyr also insisted that Honorius maintained only one human will in Christ not one will in toto. He wrote that heretics “lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming that Honorius to be one with their cause.” (7)

Besides, therefore, eventually granting Sergius his request for silence in the Church, Honorius remarks are very interesting indeed since they are, in point of fact, entirely opposed to the Monothelite heresy. Honorius wrote:

"You must confess, with us, one Christ our Lord, operating in either nature, divine OR human actions [in uirisque naturis divina vel humana operantem] >