Papal authority vis a vis an Ecumenical Council

[SiempreFiel]

But from the ecclesiastical standpoint, the visit of the Pope in Constantinople issued in a triumph scarcely less memorable than the campaigns of Belisarius. The then occupant of the Byzantine See was a certain Anthimus, who without the authority of the canons had left his episcopal see of Trebizond to join the crypto-Monophysites who, in conjunction with the Empress Theodora were then intriguing to undermine the authority of the Council of Chalcedon… Against the protests of the orthodox, the Empress finally seated Anthimus in the patriarcilal chair. No sooner had the Pope arrived than the most prominent of the clergy entered charges against the new patriarch as an intruder and a heretic. Agapetus ordered him to make a written profession of faith and to return to his forsaken see; upon his refusal, he declined to have any relations with him. This vexed the Emperor, who had been deceived by his wife as to the orthodoxy of her favorite, and he went so far as to threaten the Pope with banishment. Agapetus replied with spirit: “With eager longing have I come to gaze upon the Most Christian Emperor Justinian. In his place I find a Diocletian, whose threats, however, terrify me not.” This intrepid language made Justinian pause; and being finally convinced that Anthimus was unsound in faith, he made no objection to the Pope’s exercising the plenitude of his powers in deposing and suspending the intruder and, for the first time in the history of the Church, personally consecrating his legally elected successor, Mennas. This memorable exercise of the papal prerogative was not soon forgotten by the Orientals, who, together with the Latins, venerate him as a saint. In order to clear himself of every suspicion of abetting heresy, Justinian delivered to the Pope a written confession of faith, which the latter accepted with the judicious proviso that “although he could not admit in a layman the right of teaching religion, yet he observed with pleasure that the zeal of the Emperor was in perfect accord with the decisions of the Fathers”.

SOURCE: newadvent.org/cathen/01202c.htm

 

[Isa_Almisry]

But from the ecclesiastical standpoint, the visit of the Pope in Constantinople issued in a triumph scarcely less memorable than the campaigns of Belisarius. The then occupant of the Byzantine See was a certain Anthimus, who without the authority of the canons had left his episcopal see of Trebizond to join the crypto-Monophysites who, in conjunction with the Empress Theodora were then intriguing to undermine the authority of the Council of Chalcedon… Against the protests of the orthodox, the Empress finally seated Anthimus in the patriarcilal chair. No sooner had the Pope arrived than the most prominent of the clergy entered charges against the new patriarch as an intruder and a heretic. Agapetus ordered him to make a written profession of faith and to return to his forsaken see; upon his refusal, he declined to have any relations with him. This vexed the Emperor, who had been deceived by his wife as to the orthodoxy of her favorite, and he went so far as to threaten the Pope with banishment. Agapetus replied with spirit: “With eager longing have I come to gaze upon the Most Christian Emperor Justinian. In his place I find a Diocletian, whose threats, however, terrify me not.” This intrepid language made Justinian pause; and being finally convinced that Anthimus was unsound in faith, he made no objection to the Pope’s exercising the plenitude of his powers in deposing and suspending the intruder and, for the first time in the history of the Church, personally consecrating his legally elected successor, Mennas. This memorable exercise of the papal prerogative was not soon forgotten by the Orientals, who, together with the Latins, venerate him as a saint. In order to clear himself of every suspicion of abetting heresy, Justinian delivered to the Pope a written confession of faith, which the latter accepted with the judicious proviso that “although he could not admit in a layman the right of teaching religion, yet he observed with pleasure that the zeal of the Emperor was in perfect accord with the decisions of the Fathers”.

SOURCE: newadvent.org/cathen/01202c.htm

Was the increased size to emphasize new advent’s impartiality, or hide the lack thereof.

For one, the “first time in history”: it was an isolated incident. It was never repeated: even Nicholas had to have a council to get rid of St. Photius (said council being condemned 10 years latter). Unless 1204 counts.

And, as I pointed out, it seems it was forgotten, as Mennas was excommunicated twice by Rome, without effect.

 

[SiempreFiel]

Was the increased size to emphasize new advent’s impartiality, or hide the lack thereof.

The increased size was to emphasize that I was posting a quote. Nothing more, nothing less!

Since you seem to believe that the New Advent article is partial as it applies specifically to this issue, I shall provide more quotes from other non-catholic sources to demonstrate that Pope St. Agapetus was in fact exercising the papal prerogative.

For one, the “first time in history”: it was an isolated incident. It was never repeated: even Nicholas had to have a council to get rid of St. Photius (said council being condemned 10 years latter). Unless 1204 counts.

And, as I pointed out, it seems it was forgotten, as Mennas was excommunicated twice by Rome, without effect.

It really doesn’t matter if it was an isolated event. The pope was not suppossed to intervene in every single conflict outside of his See anyway. The pope was expected to exercise the papal prerogative only when it was necessary. In this case it was necessary, that’s why he deposed Anthimus.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

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

It HAPPENED. No use denying it. Once again, that’s evasion.

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.

The Pope excommunicated him when he refused to recant his heresy. I guess you did not know that excommunication in the early Church for an ecclesiastic was tantamount to deposition? What have they been teaching you at EO Polemic University?

Praised? Where?

On what date is Pope St. Agapetus commemorated in the Eastern calendar? The Pope did something that apparently violated the canon of an ecumenical council, yet no one has ever questioned his action as inappropriate or uncanonical, or perhaps EOPU has a different history on the matter?

The Pope Alexandria objected, and St. Gregory resigned.

Where do you get this info? Source please? Here is an excerpt from the NPNF series, vol 7, pg.98:
“Maximus, who had come to Constantinople in the hope of obtaining the Bishopric for himself … attached himself to Gregory and won his confidence…After a shor time, however, Maximus managed to procure his own consecration secretly from some Egyptian Bishops, who during an illness of Gregory enthroned him at night in the Church. In the morning, when the people discovered what had been done, they were very indignant, and Maximus and his friends were driven out of the Church and forced to leave the City.”

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

Yes, Justinian wanted him deposed, but it was the authority of Pope St. Agapetus that actualized the deposition.:banghead:

Pope Peter is on the Coptic Synexarion.

And your point? It is a mystery why Pope Peter sided with the usurper Maximus. There was probably some underhandedness going on from Maximus’ end. Big surprise. That his actions were censured on an administrative issue has no bearing on his orthodoxy by which he is commemofated

(CONT.)

 

[anthony022071]

Dear brother Anthony,

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.

The pope has the authority to intervene in a local church when a disciplinary decree is unjust or schismatic or not founded on a legitimate tradition – as with canon 28 of Chalcedon,which tried to give to the church of Constantinople prerogatives (not just primacy of honor !) in the East which had been hitherto reserved for the church of Rome.

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

Any council can pass a disciplinary decree on its own authority and cause contention and division by deposing legitimate bishops and replacing them with illegitimate,heretical bishops. The pope’s teaching authority in the whole Church must be accompanied by authority over local church discipline.

Whoever has authority in regard to local discipline also has authority in regard to local doctrine.

When a local church wants to be independent of papal authority when it comes to discipline,it always means that they intend to be doctrinally independent from the pope as well.

As I said in post 128 of this thread:

< "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.

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." >

 

[mardukm]

mardukm:

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.

I only related the MANNER of deposition, and did not mention anything about “grounds,” so I don’t understand your comment and you seem to be evading the issue once again.

In any case, as mentioned earlier, Anthimus was excommunicated because of heresy by Pope St. Agapetus. Anthimus was deposed from patriarchal status because of his unlawful translation; and he was deposed from his episcopal status by virtue of his excommunication by the Pope.

Btw, you are aware that Rome was not in communion at the time with Constantinople of St. Gregory:

Yes, it was a strange and confusing time of Arianism, semi-Arianism and orthodox Catholicism. People were often communicating with two parties who did not communicate with each other (e.g., St. Basil communicated with both Rome and Meletius, though Rome and Meletius did not communicate with each other; St. Jerome communicated with both Rome and Constantinople, though Rome and Constantinople did not communicate with each other; Alexandria communicated with both Rome and Constantinople, though Rome and Constantinople did not communicate with each other, etc., etc.). But I fail to see your purpose for bringing this up.

mardukm:

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

Isa Almisry:

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

Yes — by invalidating Maximus’ succession, St. Gregory’s deposition was overturned, exactly as I stated.

mardukm:

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

Isa Almisry:

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

Of course!!! Why would a Catholic want to commune with a heretic? I don’t understand your question, unless you are saying that the Monophysites - in the mind of the Chalcedonian Church AT THE TIME - were actually members of the Church. May I ask the point of your response?

(CONT.)

 

[anthony022071]

The pope has the authority to intervene in a local church when a disciplinary decree is unjust or schismatic or not founded on a legitimate tradition – as with canon 28 of Chalcedon,which attempted to give to the church of Constantinople privileges of honor (not primacy of honor !) in the East which had been hitherto reserved for the church of Rome.

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

Any council can pass a disciplinary decree on its own authority and cause contention and division by deposing legitimate bishops and replacing them with illegitimate,heretical bishops. The pope’s teaching authority in the whole Church must be accompanied by authority over local church discipline.

Whoever has authority in regard to local discipline also has authority in regard to local doctrine.

When a local church wants to be independent of papal authority when it comes to discipline,it always means that they intend to be doctrinally independent from the pope as well.

As I said in post 128 of this thread:

< "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.

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]

The pope has the authority to intervene in a local church when a disciplinary decree is unjust or schismatic or not founded on a legitimate tradition – as with canon 28 of Chalcedon,which tried to give to the church of Constantinople privileges of honor (not primacy of honor !) in the East which had been hitherto reserved for the church of Rome.

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

Any council can pass a disciplinary decree on its own authority and cause contention and division by deposing legitimate bishops and replacing them with illegitimate,heretical bishops. The pope’s teaching authority in the whole Church must be accompanied by authority over local church discipline.

Whoever has authority in regard to local discipline also has authority in regard to local doctrine.

When a local church wants to be independent of papal authority when it comes to discipline,it always means that they intend to be doctrinally independent from the pope as well.

As I said in post 128 of this thread:

< "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.

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." >

 

[mardukm]

CONT.

mardukm:

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.

Not just in Rome was the Pope praised for his actions. It was the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and the clergy of Constantinople who themselves appealed to the Pope to counteract the action of the Emperor! Great praise indeed resounded throughout the Empire when the Pope, true to his calling, obligation, and prerogative, as everyone recognized, judged on the matter and deposed Anthimus. This praise persists to this day since the holy Pope St. Agapetus is commemorated even by the Eastern Churches.

As far as your second sentence, I made a very exact claim regarding the Pope’s supreme appellate authority. The Churches appealed to the Pope to depose Anthimus, which he did. The plenitude of his supreme appellate authority was evident in the deposition for this was the matter of the appeal.

In any case, given that it was the Pope’s authority which won out even over the Emperor’s will regarding Anthimus’ deposition, it is simply a stretch to imagine that the mere fact of the Emperor’s choice for a successor would have been sufficient to guarantee the installation of that successor. No, brother Isa, Menas would not have been installed as successor without the Pope’s full agreement. In fact, the Emperor had no ecclesiastical authority to install his own choice anyway. In all this, the papal prerogative is fully evinced and supported. In all respects, it can truly be said that Mennas was Pope St. Agapetus’ OWN choice for a successor.

mardukm:

And twice Menas came back to Rome for forgiveness

Oops! I have too much information in my brain for my own good. Menas actually explicitly reconciled with Pope Vigilius only once, not twice, which was done after Pope Vigilius and the Emperor came to terms regarding the Three Chapters.
Isa Almisry:

And yet he was stricken from the diptychs anyway.

Maybe you missed this:…

Nah! Everything I stated is supported by what you quoted. All we have is a request from Emperor Justinian.

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

Note, the Emperor and the Council considered unity with the Pope so important that they did not cease throughout the entire period to succor for his approval.

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

That’s all well and good, but this only happens when the hierarch is heretical. What we have here is a Council constantly admitting the orthodoxy of Vigilius, and clamoring for his decision. Why should the Council remove the name of a bishop from the diptychs who they recognize as orthodox? If you can explain that, I will agree with your claim that the Council struck the name of the Pope from the diptychs. At best one can say that the Council was eagerly AWAITING the decision of the Pope. In no place do they condemn him as heterodox. If you’ve read the actual Sentence of the Synod, it is quite plain to see.

That is why it is impossible to interpret the words of the Synod “Let us preserve unity to the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has been read” as meaning they actually struck the name of the Pope from the diptychs. Why? Because one maintains unity with a See THROUGH THE ORTHODOX BISHOP OF THAT SEE. This was no one else but Vigilius. Since the Council never denied the orthodoxy of Pope Vigilius, they could not possibly maintain unity with his see while simultaneously striking his name from the diptychs.

Once again, I invite you to give me a good reason why a Council would strike from the diptychs the name of a bishop who they do not regard as heterodox. Then and only then will any claims that the Council actually acceded to the wishes of the Emperor have any merit whatsoever.

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

Indeed. Session VII of the Fifth Council asserted that an orthodox Pope is to be regarded head, father, and primate of the Ecumenical Council of bishops. History seems to demonstrate that Eastern Orthodoxy has departed from the ecclesiology of the early Church, since she currently does not recognize the office of head bishop.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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

Well in this matter, the Pope was united to Western bishops. And besides, the Eastern bishops were definitely wrong in attempting to determine the ecclesiastical status of a See based on its socio-political standing. Rome and Alexandria faithfully resisted this innovation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The pope has the authority to intervene in a local church when a disciplinary decree is unjust or schismatic or not founded on a legitimate tradition – as with canon 28 of Chalcedon,which tried to give to the church of Constantinople prerogatives (not just primacy of honor !) in the East which had been hitherto reserved for the church of Rome.

Rome did not reject Canon 28 of Chalcedon (Canon 3 of Constantinople I) because it “tried to give to the church of Constantinople prerogatives (not just a primacy of honor!) in the Eastn which had been hitherto reserved for the church of Rome.” Constantinople was always second to Rome, so Rome had no fear of Constantinople actually usurping its place and prerogatives.

The reason Canon 28 was rejected by Rome (and Alexandria, for that matter) is because it attempted to assign ecclesiastical status to a See based on socio-political considerations, as opposed to the true criterion of apostolicity.

Any council can pass a disciplinary decree on its own authority and cause contention and division by deposing legitimate bishops and replacing them with illegitimate,heretical bishops. The pope’s teaching authority in the whole Church must be accompanied by authority over local church discipline.

Though this authority is ordinary, it is not immediate, and the history of the Church bears witness to this. If and when the Pope has become involved in another patriarchal jurisdiction, it has always been at the behest of LOCAL orthodox hierarchs. The Pope, despite polemic claims to the contrary, is NOT a micro-manager who has Latin spies set up all over the Church to report to him so he can control every aspect of Church life.

Granted, in regards to the disciplinary maintenance of a universal canons affecting local Churches, the Pope as universal pastor indeed has ordinary AND immediate jurisdiction in all Churches.

Whoever has authority in regard to local discipline also has authority in regard to local doctrine.

Precisely. The LOCAL hierarchs, as asserted canonically AND dogmatically by the Catholic Church, have ordinary and immediate authority in regard to local doctrine. It must be the case that they have like authority over local discipline.

When a local church wants to be independent of papal authority when it comes to discipline,it always means that they intend to be doctrinally independent from the pope as well.

That’s an overly paranoid statement, and somewhat condescending to Eastern and Oriental Catholics who have suffered so much to remain in communion with the Pope of Rome.

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." >

I believe there is much ignorance that goes on between East/West/Orient. The key is to promote knowledge between the Churches, not reel in the non-Latin Churches under a tighter papal grip.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well in this matter, the Pope was united to Western bishops. And besides, the Eastern bishops were definitely wrong in attempting to determine the ecclesiastical status of a See based on its socio-political standing. Rome and Alexandria faithfully resisted this innovation.

Blessings,
Marduk

Oh?
Council of Chalcedon c.17
Rural or country parishes belonging to a church are to stay firmly tied to the bishops who have possession of them, and especially if they have continually and peacefully administered them over a thirty-year period. If, however, within the thirty years any dispute about them has arisen, or should arise, those who are claiming to be wronged are permitted to bring the case before the provincial synod. If there are any who are wronged by their own metropolitan, let their case be judged either by the exarch of the diocese or by the see of Constantinople, as has already been said. If any city has been newly erected, or is erected hereafter, by imperial decree, let the arrangement of ecclesiastical parishes conform to the civil and public regulations.
legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM04.HTM#3

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The increased size was to emphasize that I was posting a quote. Nothing more, nothing less!

Since you seem to believe that the New Advent article is partial as it applies specifically to this issue, I shall provide more quotes from other non-catholic sources to demonstrate that Pope St. Agapetus was in fact exercising the papal prerogative.

I have found New Advent far from impartiality in things in general and these issues with the Orthodox Catholics in particular.

It really doesn’t matter if it was an isolated event. The pope was not suppossed to intervene in every single conflict outside of his See anyway. The pope was expected to exercise the papal prerogative only when it was necessary. In this case it was necessary, that’s why he deposed Anthimus.

If you are going to argue that such a perogative existed, yes, it matters that it was isolated. At best it was the exception that made rule, at worse it is an aberration, which unlike New Advent’s boast, the “Orientals” quickly forgot.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Isa,

It HAPPENED. No use denying it. Once again, that’s evasion.

Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc (or at least cum hoc, ergo prompter hoc). Once again, that’s a fallacy.

The Pope excommunicated him when he refused to recant his heresy. I guess you did not know that excommunication in the early Church for an ecclesiastic was tantamount to deposition? What have they been teaching you at EO Polemic University?

So, according to you, St. Gregory’s deposition WASN’T overturned.
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
St. Gregory occupied the throne of Constantinople between 343 and 398.

On what date is Pope St. Agapetus commemorated in the Eastern calendar? The Pope did something that apparently violated the canon of an ecumenical council, yet no one has ever questioned his action as inappropriate or uncanonical, or perhaps EOPU has a different history on the matter?

So did St. Cyril in his opposition to St. John Chrysostom, yet he too is canonized. And St. Gregory. Examples could be multiplied.

I don’t have the canon for Pope St. Agapetus, so I don’t know what the emphasis is on this. To give poignant example, St. Alexis Toth bore the cross of losing a wife and son, and caring for his flock. But that is not why he is commemorated on the calendar, and the canon shows that. Which I have seen his names bandied about here as a problem between us.

Where do you get this info? Source please? Here is an excerpt from the NPNF series, vol 7, pg.98:
“Maximus, who had come to Constantinople in the hope of obtaining the Bishopric for himself … attached himself to Gregory and won his confidence…After a shor time, however, Maximus managed to procure his own consecration secretly from some Egyptian Bishops, who during an illness of Gregory enthroned him at night in the Church. In the morning, when the people discovered what had been done, they were very indignant, and Maximus and his friends were driven out of the Church and forced to leave the City.”
e.g. Sozomon, a near contemporary:
It is said that the emperor, from profound admiration of the sanctity and eloquence of Gregory, judged that he was worthy of this bishopric, and that, from reverence of his virtue, the greater number of the Synod was of the same opinion. Gregory at first consented to accept the presidency of the church of Constantinople; but afterwards, on ascertaining that some of the bishops, particularly those of Egypt, objected to the election, he withdrew his consent.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.iii.xii.vii.html?highlight=gregory#highlight
Yes, Justinian wanted him deposed, but it was the authority of Pope St. Agapetus that actualized the deposition.:banghead:

And your point? It is a mystery why Pope Peter sided with the usurper Maximus. There was probably some underhandedness going on from Maximus’ end. Big surprise. That his actions were censured on an administrative issue has no bearing on his orthodoxy by which he is commemofated

You just answered your own question on Agapetus.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Oh?
Council of Chalcedon c.17
Rural or country parishes belonging to a church are to stay firmly tied to the bishops who have possession of them, and especially if they have continually and peacefully administered them over a thirty-year period. If, however, within the thirty years any dispute about them has arisen, or should arise, those who are claiming to be wronged are permitted to bring the case before the provincial synod. If there are any who are wronged by their own metropolitan, let their case be judged either by the exarch of the diocese or by the see of Constantinople, as has already been said. If any city has been newly erected, or is erected hereafter, by imperial decree, let the arrangement of ecclesiastical parishes conform to the civil and public regulations.
legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM04.HTM#3

I don’t know what this proves, as far as your EO apologetic is concerned. It actually proves the Catholic position quite securely.

First, note that the purpose of Canon 28 (Canon 3 of Constantinople I) was to give to Constantinople similar prerogatives as Rome, though second to Rome. Here, one sees that Constantinople is given the ability to judge on matters outside its immediate patriarchal boundaries AMONG THE EASTERN CHURCHES. Hence, this means that Rome herself (as indeed established by the Council of Sardica), indeed had the prerogative to judge on matters outside its own patriarchal boundaries.

Second, the last line you underlined refers not to the ECCLESIASTICAL STATUS of the See, but to the JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY of the See.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I’ll respond to the rest of your posts later, I have to go. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[anthony022071]

Rome did not reject Canon 28 of Chalcedon (Canon 3 of Constantinople I) because it “tried to give to the church of Constantinople prerogatives (not just a primacy of honor!) in the Eastn which had been hitherto reserved for the church of Rome.” Constantinople was always second to Rome, so Rome had no fear of Constantinople actually usurping its place and prerogatives.

The reason Canon 28 was rejected by Rome (and Alexandria, for that matter) is because it attempted to assign ecclesiastical status to a See based on socio-political considerations, as opposed to the true criterion of apostolicity.

Constantinople was not always second to Rome.
Alexandria was the second see and Antioch was the third see. The Church of Constantinople did not become a major episcopate until about 324.
It was not just about status – it was also the prerogatives,or privileges,that went along with apostolic status. With ecclesiastical status goes ecclesiastical privileges.
Canon 28 spelled out the privileges that were to be accorded to New Rome,and they reflect the privileges that Old Rome had in the East. So it is disingenous for the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics to say that Roman papal jurisdiction was unknown in the East.

newadvent.org/fathers/3604104.htm

Pope Leo to the Emporer:

“Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3604105.htm

Pope Leo to the Empress:

“It is too arrogant and intemperate thus to step beyond all proper bounds and trampling on ancient custom to wish to seize another’s right: to increase one man’s dignity at the expense of so many metropolitans’ primacy, and to carry a new war of confusion into peaceful provinces which were long ago set at rest by the enactments of the holy Nicene Synod: to break through the venerable Fathers’ decrees by alleging the consent of certain bishops, which even the course of so many years has not rendered effective. For it is boasted that this has been winked at for almost 60 years now, and the said bishop thinks that he is assisted thereby; but it is vain for him to look for assistance from that which, even if a man dared to wish for it, yet he could never obtain.”

“But the bishops’ assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicæa in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter’s authority we absolutely dis-annul in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of all priests in such sort that even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3604106.htm

Pope Leo to Anatolius:

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

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

…“For your purpose is in no way whatever supported by the written assent of certain bishops given, as you allege, 60 years ago, and never brought to the knowledge of the Apostolic See by your predecessors; and this transaction, which from its outset was doomed to fall through and has now long done so, you now wish to bolster up by means that are too late and useless, viz., by extracting from the brethren an appearance of consent which their modesty from very weariness yielded to their own injury.”

 

[Ghosty]

Constantinople was not always second to Rome.
Alexandria was the second see and Antioch was the third see. The Church of Constantinople did not become a major episcopate until about 324.
It was not just about status – it was also the prerogatives,or privileges,that went along with apostolic status. With ecclesiastical status goes ecclesiastical privileges.
Canon 28 spelled out the privileges that were to be accorded to New Rome,and they reflect the privileges that Old Rome had in the East. So it is disingenous for the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics to say that Roman papal jurisdiction was unknown in the East.

newadvent.org/fathers/3604104.htm

Pope Leo to the Emporer:

“Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3604105.htm

Pope Leo to the Empress:

“It is too arrogant and intemperate thus to step beyond all proper bounds and trampling on ancient custom to wish to seize another’s right: to increase one man’s dignity at the expense of so many metropolitans’ primacy, and to carry a new war of confusion into peaceful provinces which were long ago set at rest by the enactments of the holy Nicene Synod: to break through the venerable Fathers’ decrees by alleging the consent of certain bishops, which even the course of so many years has not rendered effective. For it is boasted that this has been winked at for almost 60 years now, and the said bishop thinks that he is assisted thereby; but it is vain for him to look for assistance from that which, even if a man dared to wish for it, yet he could never obtain.”

“But the bishops’ assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicæa in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter’s authority we absolutely dis-annul in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of all priests in such sort that even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3604106.htm

Pope Leo to Anatolius:

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

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

…“For your purpose is in no way whatever supported by the written assent of certain bishops given, as you allege, 60 years ago, and never brought to the knowledge of the Apostolic See by your predecessors; and this transaction, which from its outset was doomed to fall through and has now long done so, you now wish to bolster up by means that are too late and useless, viz., by extracting from the brethren an appearance of consent which their modesty from very weariness yielded to their own injury.”

I believe Mardukm was simply emphasizing that Constantinople wasn’t usurping anything of Rome’s, not that it had always been second in terms of time. In other words it was always, in this context, considered second to Rome and not equal to it, so Rome wasn’t guarding its own prerogatives by rejecting that Canon.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ghosty,

I believe Mardukm was simply emphasizing that Constantinople wasn’t usurping anything of Rome’s, not that it had always been second in terms of time. In other words it was always, in this context, considered second to Rome and not equal to it, so Rome wasn’t guarding its own prerogatives by rejecting that Canon.

Peace and God bless!

As usual, we’re on the same page. Thank you!

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Thank you for your patience.

Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc (or at least cum hoc, ergo prompter hoc). Once again, that’s a fallacy.

No it isn’t. You’re assuming that when I say “IT HAPPENED,” I am MERELY referring to the fact that the Pope did judge on a matter outside of his normal jurisdiction, deposed a Patriarch, and installed a new one. You’re assuming those facts are the sole bases for my conclusion that the Pope indeed has that authority. No sir, the basis of my belief that the Pope has authority to judge on matters outside his normal jurisdiction in extraordinary circumstances is based NOT ONLY on the decrees of the Council of Sardica, but ALSO by the very fact that the local clergy of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem APPEALED TO THE POPE TO JUDGE ON THE MATTER. No fallacy here, but the mere Truth.

So, according to you, St. Gregory’s deposition WASN’T overturned…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.
St. Gregory occupied the throne of Constantinople between 343 and 398.

When was St. Gregory ever excommunicated by the bishop of Rome?

mardukm:

On what date is Pope St. Agapetus commemorated in the Eastern calendar? The Pope did something that apparently violated the canon of an ecumenical council, yet no one has ever questioned his action as inappropriate or uncanonical, or perhaps EOPU has a different history on the matter?

]
So did St. Cyril in his opposition to St. John Chrysostom, yet he too is canonized. And St. Gregory. Examples could be multiplied.

Brother, the difference is that whereas the others you mentioned indeed violated certain canons yet are commemorated, your Church currently regards the actions of Pope St. Agapetus as something heretical - an example of the (supposedly) heretical teaching that the Pope has jurisdiction in the ENTIRE Church, not just his own territory.
Isa Almisry:

I don’t have the canon for Pope St. Agapetus, so I don’t know what the emphasis is on this.

Is this it? We know that great deeds are not reserved to youth alone, O holy father and hierarch, for you revealed to us the marvels of grace in the evening of life. As a trumpet of the good news and herald of righteousness, you upheld the orthodox faith and bravely rebuked the imperial daring. O wise and holy Agapetus, beg Christ, our God, to save our souls.

Where do you get this info? Source please?

Isa Almisry:

e.g. Sozomon, a near contemporary:
It is said that the emperor, from profound admiration of the sanctity and eloquence of Gregory, judged that he was worthy of this bishopric, and that, from reverence of his virtue, the greater number of the Synod was of the same opinion. Gregory at first consented to accept the presidency of the church of Constantinople; but afterwards, on ascertaining that some of the bishops, particularly those of Egypt, objected to the election, he withdrew his consent.

Oh, I see the source of your confusion. The instance of which Sozomen writes occurred DURING THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. The episode with Maximus and the Egyptian bishops that is the issue of our inquiry occurred MANY MONTHS BEFORE. We’re talking about two different occasions, brother.

mardukm:

Yes, Justinian wanted him deposed, but it was the authority of Pope St. Agapetus that actualized the deposition.:banghead:

No comment? I assume you agree with the truth of the statement then.

mardukm:

And your point? It is a mystery why Pope Peter sided with the usurper Maximus. There was probably some underhandedness going on from Maximus’ end. Big surprise. That his actions were censured on an administrative issue has no bearing on his orthodoxy by which he is commemofated

Isa Almisry:

You just answered your own question on Agapetus.

Already answered above.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[anthony022071]

I believe Mardukm was simply emphasizing that Constantinople wasn’t usurping anything of Rome’s, not that it had always been second in terms of time. In other words it was always, in this context, considered second to Rome and not equal to it, so Rome wasn’t guarding its own prerogatives by rejecting that Canon.

Hello,

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

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

Pope Leo to Anatolius:

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

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

…“For your purpose is in no way whatever supported by the written assent of certain bishops given, as you allege, 60 years ago, and never brought to the knowledge of the Apostolic See by your predecessors; and this transaction, which from its outset was doomed to fall through and has now long done so, you now wish to bolster up by means that are too late and useless, viz., by extracting from the brethren an appearance of consent which their modesty from very weariness yielded to their own injury.”