Papal authority vis a vis an Ecumenical Council

[tdgesq]

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).

The creed was also known to the West. That is not the issue.

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

This is all false. The canons of Constantinople do survive in mutilated form as well though. You know nothing about Lateran I.

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

You won’t answer the question. The people to which you cited as authority do believe that it is an Eighth Ecumenical Council. It is hard to see how it couldn’t be if they are right. You will cite to things you don’t even believe.

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?

East and West were there. And they agree on all of the canons. There is evidence all over the place of the proceedings from the Fathers.

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.

Your opinion is noted.

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

So don’t answer the question then. No similar procedures. You have a double standard for Rome, and that doesn’t surprise me, but it does surprise when it comes from an Eastern Catholic (Jimmy).

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

Provide some evidence, then maybe we can deal with it. But you don’t provide any.

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.

This isn’t about Constantinople’s heresy. It isn’t about Rome’s either. It is what is required for a council to be ecumenical. A simple question, and one that the Orthodox are completely and utterly unable to answer. The only thing they can tell us is that Church as whole must accept the council. But surprise, surprise, not if it’s Rome. It is the lone exception.

 

[jimmy]

Honorius was condemned as a heretic. He is explicitely called “Honorius the heretic” from what I recall. He was condemned by later popes as a heretic. Your interpretation of honorius is simply sophistry which avoids the fact of history. It is simply a way for you to sidestep the truth. He says one will in what is quoted, that is monothelitism. We believe there are two wills in Christ, one human and one divine.

 

[jimmy]

So don’t answer the question then. No similar procedures. You have a double standard for Rome, and that doesn’t surprise me, but it does surprise when it comes from an Eastern Catholic (Jimmy).

It is a twisting of my words to say I have a double standard. You expect me to accord all authority to Rome. Rome determines the canonicity of a canon. That will not happen. All bishops have equal authority and Rome is not the determiner of canonicity. You give Rome the keys and say that none of the other bishops have the authority to bind and loose. What Rome says goes. If I do not accord the authority to determine the canonicity of a canon to Rome then I am automatically assumed to have a double standard. You are the one with the double standard. You expect the east to accept the statements of Rome but you do not expect Rome to accept the statements of the east.

 

[tdgesq]

It is a twisting of my words to say I have a double standard. You expect me to accord all authority to Rome. Rome determines the canonicity of a canon. That will not happen. All bishops have equal authority and Rome is not the determiner of canonicity. You give Rome the keys and say that none of the other bishops have the authority to bind and loose. What Rome says goes. If I do not accord the authority to determine the canonicity of a canon to Rome then I am automatically assumed to have a double standard. You are the one with the double standard. You expect the east to accept the statements of Rome but you do not expect Rome to accept the statements of the east.

Like I wrote last time, I will give you a dollar if you can show anywhere in this thread where I have made a statement about the authority of the Bishop of Rome in the way you have characterized here. I said nothing about the Keys. I said nothing about according all authority to Rome. I said nothing about what Rome says goes. I have not said that Rome gets to determine the canon.

What I have said is this: It is hypocritical to claim ecumenism outside of the west, specifically Rome. You claim we are brothers in your profile by virtue of being a Maronite, but then you claim that my Church isn’t necessary for an ecumenical decision. You would never concede that position for the Maronites. Never. Yet the Church with supremacy of honor is supposed to?

 

[anthony022071]

jimmy

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.Bishops may be equal in authority in a council,but outside a council

The fact that a pope has authority over all doesn’t mean he doesn’t he develops theological definitions and doctrine by himself. He just has the final word of approval or disapproval…

< The pope never had authority over eastern bishops. >

St. Basil did not seem to think so.

“Nearly all the East (I include under this name all the regions from Illyricum to Egypt) is being agitated, right honourable father [Pope Damasus], by a terrible storm and tempest. The old heresy, sown by Arius the enemy of the truth, has now boldly and unblushingly reappeared. Like some sour root, it is producing its deadly fruit and is prevailing. The reason of this is, that in every district the champions of right doctrine have been exiled from their Churches by calumny and outrage, and the control of affairs has been handed over to men who are leading captive the souls of the simpler brethren. I have looked upon the visit of your mercifulness as the only possible solution of our difficulties… I have been constrained to beseech you by letter to be moved to help us…In this I am by no means making any novel request, but am only asking what has been customary in the case of men who, before our day, were blessed and dear to God, and conspicuously in your own case. For I well remember learning from the answers made by our fathers when asked, and from documents still preserved among us, that the illustrious and blessed bishop [Pope] Dionysius, conspicuous in your see as well as for soundness of faith as for all virtues, visited by letter my Church of Caeserea, and by letter exhorted our fathers, and sent men to ransom our brethren from captivity.” (Letter 70)

Also,Pope Leo deposed the heretical bishops who participated in the robber council of Ephesus,and he reinstated the bishops that the council had deposed.

Pope Gregory the Great:

“For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge?” (Epistle 9:26).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

jimmy

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.Bishops may be equal in authority in a council,but outside a council

The fact that a pope has authority over all doesn’t mean he doesn’t he develops theological definitions and doctrine by himself. He just has the final word of approval or disapproval…

< The pope never had authority over eastern bishops. >

St. Basil did not seem to think so.

“Nearly all the East (I include under this name all the regions from Illyricum to Egypt) is being agitated, right honourable father [Pope Damasus], by a terrible storm and tempest. The old heresy, sown by Arius the enemy of the truth, has now boldly and unblushingly reappeared. Like some sour root, it is producing its deadly fruit and is prevailing. The reason of this is, that in every district the champions of right doctrine have been exiled from their Churches by calumny and outrage, and the control of affairs has been handed over to men who are leading captive the souls of the simpler brethren. I have looked upon the visit of your mercifulness as the only possible solution of our difficulties… I have been constrained to beseech you by letter to be moved to help us…In this I am by no means making any novel request, but am only asking what has been customary in the case of men who, before our day, were blessed and dear to God, and conspicuously in your own case. For I well remember learning from the answers made by our fathers when asked, and from documents still preserved among us, that the illustrious and blessed bishop [Pope] Dionysius, conspicuous in your see as well as for soundness of faith as for all virtues, visited by letter my Church of Caeserea, and by letter exhorted our fathers, and sent men to ransom our brethren from captivity.” (Letter 70)

You posted this before. And St. Basil’s letter which appealed to Pope Athanasius’ authority was posted in response.

Also,Pope Leo deposed the heretical bishops who participated in the robber council of Ephesus,and he reinstated the bishops that the council had deposed.

The Council did that. Leo had demanded that Theodoret be restored (which did not happen, and his writings were c). Dioscoros was not to be seated, but he was. This too has been posted.

Pope Gregory the Great:

“For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge?” (Epistle 9:26).

I posted on this several times: Gregory also calls John his “brother the bishop” the precursor of the anti-Christ, in which case, if true, why would anyone follow what John “acknowledged?”

Btw, due to reasons already stated, it might be a while until I can respond regularly again.

 

[jimmy]

jimmy

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.Bishops may be equal in authority in a council,but outside a council

The fact that a pope has authority over all doesn’t mean he doesn’t he develops theological definitions and doctrine by himself. He just has the final word of approval or disapproval. .

Yes it does, read the canon law. The pope has the choice to excercise his authority collegially or individually as the canon law says. It is not simply the last word, it is the word.

St. Basil did not seem to think so.

“Nearly all the East (I include under this name all the regions from Illyricum to Egypt) is being agitated, right honourable father [Pope Damasus], by a terrible storm and tempest. The old heresy, sown by Arius the enemy of the truth, has now boldly and unblushingly reappeared. Like some sour root, it is producing its deadly fruit and is prevailing. The reason of this is, that in every district the champions of right doctrine have been exiled from their Churches by calumny and outrage, and the control of affairs has been handed over to men who are leading captive the souls of the simpler brethren. I have looked upon the visit of your mercifulness as the only possible solution of our difficulties… I have been constrained to beseech you by letter to be moved to help us…In this I am by no means making any novel request, but am only asking what has been customary in the case of men who, before our day, were blessed and dear to God, and conspicuously in your own case. For I well remember learning from the answers made by our fathers when asked, and from documents still preserved among us, that the illustrious and blessed bishop [Pope] Dionysius, conspicuous in your see as well as for soundness of faith as for all virtues, visited by letter my Church of Caeserea, and by letter exhorted our fathers, and sent men to ransom our brethren from captivity.” (Letter 70)

Where does that support universal jurisdiction? It doesn’t. St. Basil simply asks for the help of the pope. The pope has no right to enter into the situation unless he is asked. Whereas modern western Catholics would interpret it that the pope has the final say in all decisions no matter whether he is asked or not.

Also,Pope Leo deposed the heretical bishops who participated in the robber council of Ephesus,and he reinstated the bishops that the council had deposed.

Pope Gregory the Great:

“For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge?” (Epistle 9:26).

Isa already responded.

 

[jimmy]

Like I wrote last time, I will give you a dollar if you can show anywhere in this thread where I have made a statement about the authority of the Bishop of Rome in the way you have characterized here. I said nothing about the Keys. I said nothing about according all authority to Rome. I said nothing about what Rome says goes. I have not said that Rome gets to determine the canon.

What I have said is this: It is hypocritical to claim ecumenism outside of the west, specifically Rome. You claim we are brothers in your profile by virtue of being a Maronite, but then you claim that my Church isn’t necessary for an ecumenical decision. You would never concede that position for the Maronites. Never. Yet the Church with supremacy of honor is supposed to?

I do not claim my church is necessary and yours is not for a council to be ecumenical. I simply deny the idea that the pope is the ultimate authority on truth. As I have repetedly said, all churches are equal. They all have an equal say. You reject canon 3 of Constantinople and 28 of Chalcedon because Pope Leo I rejected them but if a Maronite or Melkite bishop rejected a canon of a council it wouldn’t matter because the pope supported it and all the western bishops signed off on it. This is basically the feeling that has developed in the west. It matters little that the Melkites at Vatican I did not support the definition of papal infallibility. Now, maybe you feel differently than a large portion of the west but this is the view they have. They will not accord us any sense of equality. Just look at the discussions on St. Gregory Palamas, the Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, and etc. We are expected to simply accept the Roman definition and deny our own traditions. Maybe you have come to a different conclusion than the others on this forum though. If that is the case then I apologize.

The west does not say suppremacy of honor, they say supremacy of jurisdiction.

 

[tdgesq]

I do not claim my church is necessary and yours is not for a council to be ecumenical. I simply deny the idea that the pope is the ultimate authority on truth. As I have repetedly said, all churches are equal. They all have an equal say. You reject canon 3 of Constantinople and 28 of Chalcedon because Pope Leo I rejected them but if a Maronite or Melkite bishop rejected a canon of a council it wouldn’t matter because the pope supported it and all the western bishops signed off on it. This is basically the feeling that has developed in the west. It matters little that the Melkites at Vatican I did not support the definition of papal infallibility. Now, maybe you feel differently than a large portion of the west but this is the view they have. They will not accord us any sense of equality. Just look at the discussions on St. Gregory Palamas, the Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, and etc. We are expected to simply accept the Roman definition and deny our own traditions. Maybe you have come to a different conclusion than the others on this forum though. If that is the case then I apologize.

The west does not say suppremacy of honor, they say supremacy of jurisdiction.

Jimmy, let me give you my final thoughts on this. I know that I have a different view of Papal authority than some Roman Catholics do. That being said, from everything you’ve posted my guess is that my understanding also differs from yours. So be it. I don’t want to get into an argument about that with you. I just wanted to find some common ground with Eastern Catholics on what is required for a council to be ecumenical and therefore binding on the entire Catholic communion.

I am somewhat familiar with the East’s theological notion of Church consciousness, and that the Church as a whole must accept a council for it to be ecumenical. That is why it seems to me that if the RCC rejects a council, or even canons found within that council, they don’t qualify as ecumenical.

Now we can turn to the Roman Catholic theology of what it believes is required for a council to be ecumenical. You would likely disagree with that theology. But the conclusion at least would be the same, that a council is not ecumenical without approval of the RCC. It may be true that the RCC’s claims in many other ways go further than that, and you would disagree with them. You would say it isn’t a sufficient condition for just Rome to declare it ecumenical without the agreement of the other Churches. I’m not going to argue with you about that. But I would like to think we can agree that it is at least a necessary condition for Rome to consent for it to be ecumenical, even if in your view it isn’t the only condition.

 

[anthony022071]

jimmy

Yes it does, read the canon law. The pope has the choice to excercise his authority collegially or individually as the canon law says. It is not simply the last word, it is the word.

The fact that the pope can excercise his authority individually does not mean that the popes develop doctrines or theological definitions by themselves. Those are two different things. The popes rely upon the works of the great theologians and on traditions when they make doctrinal statements.

Where does that support universal jurisdiction? It doesn’t.

You had said that the popes never had authority over Eastern bishops.
St. Basil’s request for help shows that they did. Basil says that he is only doing what is “customary”,and he gives the example of how Pope Dionysius "visited by letter my Church of Caeserea, and by letter exhorted our fathers, and sent men to ransom our brethren from captivity.”

St. Basil simply asks for the help of the pope. The pope has no right to enter into the situation unless he is asked.

According to who? Where is that written in the works of the Church fathers or the councils?
The only bishops that would have said that the pope has no right to intervene unless he is asked are those who intend to do some mischief with the doctrines and with their authority. People who would say “don’t call us,we’ll call you” to the pope are already rejecting communion with the pope.

Whereas modern western Catholics would interpret it that the pope has the final say in all decisions no matter whether he is asked or not.

Some would,but many wouldn’t. There are many Catholics who resent and mistrust,or are disinterested in,or ignore,papal authority. And it is never just a matter of jurisdiction: they disagree with certain Catholic doctrines,or they think that Rome has become heretical since Vatican 2,or they prefer their local community to communion with the pope and the whole Church,or they get carried away with charismatic movements or liberation theology. When people reject the authority of the pope,that shows they want to wander off away from the shepherd,away from the fold.

 

[anthony022071]

Isa Almisry

< You posted this before. And St. Basil’s letter which appealed to Pope Athanasius’ authority was posted in response. >

Basil appealed to Athanasius’ authority as the greatest preacher against heretics of that time.
But Athanasius was deposed by fellow bishops,and was restored to his see by Pope Julius,so he was not on a par with the pope.

Basil wrote the following to Athanasius.

“It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him [the bishop of Rome] to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey,-suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here”

When Athanasius was deposed by the Arian sympathizers,Pope Julius wrote this letter to them,which Athanasius quoted in his Defence Against the Arians.

“Why was nothing said to us [Pope Julius and the Roman Church] concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us [Rome], and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place [Rome]; whereas, after neglecting to inform us and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us… Thus wrote the Council of Rome by Julius, Bishop of Rome.”

…“When Ursacius and Valens saw all this, they forthwith condemned themselves for what they had done, and going up to Rome, confessed their crime, declared themselves penitent, and sought forgiveness, addressing the following letters to Julius, Bishop of ancient Rome, and to ourselves.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry

< You posted this before. And St. Basil’s letter which appealed to Pope Athanasius’ authority was posted in response. >

Basil appealed to Athanasius’ authority as the greatest preacher against heretics of that time.
But Athanasius was deposed by fellow bishops,and was restored to his see by Pope Julius,so he was not on a par with the pope.

Basil wrote the following to Athanasius.

“It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him [the bishop of Rome] to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey,-suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here”

When Athanasius was deposed by the Arian sympathizers,Pope Julius wrote this letter to them,which Athanasius quoted in his Defence Against the Arians.

“Why was nothing said to us [Pope Julius and the Roman Church] concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us [Rome], and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place [Rome]; whereas, after neglecting to inform us and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us… Thus wrote the Council of Rome by Julius, Bishop of Rome.”

…“When Ursacius and Valens saw all this, they forthwith condemned themselves for what they had done, and going up to Rome, confessed their crime, declared themselves penitent, and sought forgiveness, addressing the following letters to Julius, Bishop of ancient Rome, and to ourselves.

Yet Athansius remained in exile.

Julius did not “restore” Athanasius, although he did work towards it, and called Sardica as a General Councel for that (and other things). However, mainly only his bishops showed up, and the council was never accepted.

The Faithful (as opposed to the bishops), never stopped regarding Athanasius as the real and canonical Pope of Alexandria, as shown by their response to his returns.

Athanasius’ “Defense against the Arians”

sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/204/2040191.htm

where it shows that Ursacius and Valens changed when the Council of Jerusalem urged Alexandria to accept Athanasius, without ANY reference to the Pope of Rome (but did refer to the emperors. That the emperor of the West supported the Catholics has more to do with why Athanasius ended up there and was supported). Athanasius reproduces a number of letters, none of which reference Julius’ restoring Athanasius, but urge that restoration. Again, the emperors are mentioned. If Julius’ words were more definitive, you’d see them quoted as authority. We, however, find them only in Julius’ assertions of authority, of a “custom” which no one else seems to be aware of.

 

[twf]

Did not Pope Agapetus depose the heretical patriarch of Constantinople and replace him with his own candidate?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Did not Pope Agapetus depose the heretical patriarch of Constantinople and replace him with his own candidate?

yes and no.

The EP Anthimus I had abandoned his see at Trebizond to join the monophysite party of the empress Theodora. According to the canons, this was grounds for deposition, and on this basis he was deposed. (St. Gregory was deposed by the Pope of Alexandria for the same reason at the Second Ecumenical Council). He was a heretic, but Pope Agapetus just told him to go back to his see, which he did. Would you send a heretic to a bishoprick?

Justinian picked Menas I, and Agapetus consecrated him. Twice Menas was excommunicated by Rome, with no effect.

Menas’ successor Eutychius went on to hold the Fifth Ecumenical Council, over Pope Vigilius’ objections, to clean up the mess of Menas’ patriarchate and Vigilius’ footdragging. The Council at one point struck the Pope from the diptychs: he was restored once he signed off on the Council.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

The pope has the veto power on all the decisions of a council.

This is only partly true. In matters of faith or morals, the Pope has veto power. In matters of discipline, however, the Pope IN AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, “only” has the authority to determine whether or not a disciplinary decree is binding on the ENTIRE Church. The Pope does not have the authority to veto or cancel that disciplinary decree altogether if it ALREADY exists in a particular Church. This is what the Eastern Code asserts.

For anyone interested, I compiled a list of Eastern Canon laws in an old thread entitled “Papal Prerogatives” regarding the Pope’s relationship to particular Churches (and relating to brother Michael’s initial request). They are on page 16 beginning with post #231.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Also, following along those sames line, haven’t there been cases where a Pope has accepted some parts of a Council, but not others, and that these today are not considered ecumenical, or valid? I am thinking of the Council of Basle in particular here, where entire sessions have been rejected by a Pope, there may be others. It seems on the surface to be a contradiction.

What is the contradiction of which you speak exactly?

What about Canon 28 of Chalcedon? If the entire Council voted on it, and it passed without a tie, what right does the bishop of Rome have to nullify it?Also where in the canons is that authority formally specified?

Apostolic Canon 34 specifically insists that no decision of major importance is valid without the consent of the head bishop.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Brother Isa,

I see you are trying to evade the issues. Permit me to clarify.

The EP Anthimus I had abandoned his see at Trebizond to join the monophysite party of the empress Theodora. According to the canons, this was grounds for deposition, and on this basis he was deposed.

The point is not what the grounds for deposition were (certainly, there ALWAYS has to be grounds for deposition). The starkly relevant moment of this episode was the fact that the Pope utilized his singular and supreme appellate authority to depose a Patriarch. NO ONE objected. The Emperor and the Eastern Church PRAISED the Pope for his action.

St. Gregory was deposed by the Pope of Alexandria for the same reason at the Second Ecumenical Council.

What possible comparison can you glean between the two episodes? There are so many differences, hardly any similarities:

1. The Pope of Alexandria did not personally depose St. Gregory; The Pope of Rome personally deposed Anthimus.
2. The Church responded to the actions of Pope Peter of Alexandria by censuring his actions, establishing canons that forbade an ecclesiastic from interfering in the affairs of a jurisdiction not his own; the Church responded to the actions of
   Pope St. Agapetus by commemorating his name forever.
3. St. Gregory was deposed by intrigue without a chance to defend himself (actually, St. Gregory was never lawfully deposed, but was simply replaced); Anthimus was lawfully tried and deposed by the Pope.
4. St. Gregory’s deposition was overturned by the Church; Anthimus’ deposition was upheld by the Church.

He was a heretic, but Pope Agapetus just told him to go back to his see, which he did. Would you send a heretic to a bishoprick?

Why do you purposefully tell only half the story? Actually, Pope St. Agapetus sent him back ON CONDITION OF REPENTANCE, and when Anthimus refused, the holy Pope broke communion with him. That’s a MUCH more important consideration, rather than the mere fact that Anthimus returned to his old See.

Justinian picked Menas I, and Agapetus consecrated him.

Who picked whom is not the point. Rather, it is the fact that the Pope of Rome used his ecclesiastical authority to consecrate a bishop OUTSIDE his ORDINARY patriarchal jurisdiction. Of course, this was an example of the Pope using his prerogatives in an EXTRAordinary manner. This was AFTER an ecumenical council stated this was not allowed. But the Church’s reaction was not rebuke; RATHER IT WAS RESOUNDING PRAISE, a praise that has survived the centuries and the Great Schism!.

Twice Menas was excommunicated by Rome, with no effect.

And twice Menas came back to Rome for forgiveness. The excommunications seem to have had their intended effect despite your peculiar misinterpretation.

Menas’ successor Eutychius went on to hold the Fifth Ecumenical Council, over Pope Vigilius’ objections, to clean up the mess of Menas’ patriarchate and Vigilius’ footdragging.

I could be wrong, but I believe the only thing Pope Vigilius objected to was the LOCATION of the Council. And “footdragging” seems like an overly polemic twist on the matter, especially as his rationale was to defend the Council of Chalcedon against any naysayers, as indeed Chalcedon did not anathematize the persons that the Emperor wanted anathematized. It is also important to point out that the Fifth Council CONSISTENTLY proclaimed Pope Vigilius’ doctrinal orthodoxy in the whole affair, a fact Orthodox polemicists seem to constantly miss.

The Council at one point struck the Pope from the diptychs: he was restored once he signed off on the Council.

Well, that’s a misinterpretation of history if I ever read one. In fact, there is NO record from the Council that the Pope’s name was struck from the diptychs. What we have is a request by the Emperor to have it struck, WITH NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM THE COUNCIL THAT IT WOULD BE DONE OR THAT IT WAS DONE. Not only that, but we have the Council responding to the Emperor’s request by asserting its own desire to PRESERVE UNITY WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE. Brother, you don’t do that by cuttting someone off from the dyptichs

Brother Isa, I think you are reading too many polemic/apologetic versions of history by Orthodox Christians. Polemic Orthodox slants and twists on history simply cannot stand up to the solid truth of the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Brother Isa,

I see you are trying to evade the issues. Permit me to clarify.

Please do.

The point is not what the grounds for deposition were (certainly, there ALWAYS has to be grounds for deposition). The starkly relevant moment of this episode was the fact that the Pope utilized his singular and supreme appellate authority to depose a Patriarch.

You are assuming that he has such an authority. That’s begging the question.

That he should have been deposed as a heretic (that means not bishop anywhere). However, he wasn’t. He was told to go back to Trebizond, which he did.

NO ONE objected. The Emperor and the Eastern Church PRAISED the Pope for his action.

Praised? Where?

What possible comparison can you glean between the two episodes? There are so many differences, hardly any similarities:

1. The Pope of Alexandria did not personally depose St. Gregory; The Pope of Rome personally deposed Anthimus.

The Pope Alexandria objected, and St. Gregory resigned.

As for personally deposed Anthimus, it seems Justinian had a hand in it.

1. The Church responded to the actions of Pope Peter of Alexandria by censuring his actions, establishing canons that forbade an ecclesiastic from interfering in the affairs of a jurisdiction not his own; the Church responded to the actions of
   Pope St. Agapetus by commemorating his name forever.

Pope Peter is on the Coptic Synexarion.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

1. St. Gregory was deposed by intrigue without a chance to defend himself (actually, St. Gregory was never lawfully deposed, but was simply replaced); Anthimus was lawfully tried and deposed by the Pope.

I thought grounds didn’t matter. You have to be tried for something. And according to the canon, Anthimus was sent back to his See, not deposed as a heretic as Agapetus had insisted.

Btw, you are aware that Rome was not in communion at the time with Constantinople of St. Gregory:
During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor. The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.
catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

1. St. Gregory’s deposition was overturned by the Church; Anthimus’ deposition was upheld by the Church.

Actually Maximus’ was invalidated. St. Gregory had broken the canon, though given the circumstances…

Why do you purposefully tell only half the story? Actually, Pope St. Agapetus sent him back ON CONDITION OF REPENTANCE, and when Anthimus refused, the holy Pope broke communion with him. That’s a MUCH more important consideration, rather than the mere fact that Anthimus returned to his old See.

\

Did the rest of the Church? Inquiring minds want to know.

Who picked whom is not the point. Rather, it is the fact that the Pope of Rome used his ecclesiastical authority to consecrate a bishop OUTSIDE his ORDINARY patriarchal jurisdiction. Of course, this was an example of the Pope using his prerogatives in an EXTRAordinary manner. This was AFTER an ecumenical council stated this was not allowed. But the Church’s reaction was not rebuke; RATHER IT WAS RESOUNDING PRAISE, a praise that has survived the centuries and the Great Schism!.

at least in Rome. If you are claiming that the pope has this supremacy, who picked who is precisely the point.

And twice Menas came back to Rome for forgiveness.

Source?

The excommunications seem to have had their intended effect despite your peculiar misinterpretation.

Seem? Source?

I could be wrong, but I believe the only thing Pope Vigilius objected to was the LOCATION of the Council. And “footdragging” seems like an overly polemic twist on the matter, especially as his rationale was to defend the Council of Chalcedon against any naysayers, as indeed Chalcedon did not anathematize the persons that the Emperor wanted anathematized. It is also important to point out that the Fifth Council CONSISTENTLY proclaimed Pope Vigilius’ doctrinal orthodoxy in the whole affair, a fact Orthodox polemicists seem to constantly miss.

And yet he was stricken from the diptychs anyway.

Well, that’s a misinterpretation of history if I ever read one. In fact, there is NO record from the Council that the Pope’s name was struck from the diptychs. What we have is a request by the Emperor to have it struck, WITH NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM THE COUNCIL THAT IT WOULD BE DONE OR THAT IT WAS DONE. Not only that, but we have the Council responding to the Emperor’s request by asserting its own desire to PRESERVE UNITY WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE. Brother, you don’t do that by cuttting someone off from the dyptichs

Maybe you missed this:

Constantine, the most glorious Quæstor, said: While I am still present at your holy council by reason of the reading of the documents which have been presented to you, I would say that the most pious Emperor has sent a minute (formam), to your Holy Synod, concerning the name of Vigilius, that it be no more inserted in the holy diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety which he defended. Neither let it be recited by you, nor retained, either in the church of the royal city, or in other churches which are intrusted to you and to the other bishops in the State committed by God to his rule. And when you hear this minute, again you will perceive by it how much the most serene Emperor cares for the unity of the holy churches and for the purity of the holy mysteries.

[The letter was then read.]

The holy Synod said: What has seemed good to the most pious Emperor is congruous to the labours which he bears for the unity of the churches. Let us preserve unity to (ad) the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has been read.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.v.html

Note, no one says, “oh, we can’t do that. He’s the Pope. We must be united to him.” blah, blah, blah.

comemorating a Church instead of a hierarch happens today in such situations.

Brother Isa, I think you are reading too many polemic/apologetic versions of history by Orthodox Christians. Polemic Orthodox slants and twists on history simply cannot stand up to the solid truth of the matter.

Comparing the history of the pope of Rome after 1014 and before brings out the distinction between primacy and ultramontanism.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Michael,

What is the contradiction of which you speak exactly?

Apostolic Canon 34 specifically insists that no decision of major importance is valid without the consent of the head bishop.

If I recall, it also specifically says he shouldn’t do anything without his brother bishops.