Papal authority vis a vis an Ecumenical Council

[Isa_Almisry]

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

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

No, but it does contradict your claims that the Church considered the canons as annulled, and the Church did not follow them for six centuries.

Btw, I may have misspoke. I’d have to check, but will not have the time for some time (pressing issues now taking up more of my time): the letters of Leo may have only been complaining about the Bishops following the canons, not the formal transfer. That was on and off for centuries and did not become definite until after St. Photios (who sent SS Cyril and Methodius from Thessalonika).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

Wrong again:

The autocephalacy of Cyprus was confirmed (against Antioch) at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, without any schism, c. viii:

Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all. Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.

Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xii.html

And of course, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were set up at Nicea c. vi, without schism:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria **have jurisdiction **in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.viii.html

The same with Jerusalem:

The most magnificent and glorious judges said:…The arrangement arrived at through the agreement of the most holy Maximus, the bishop of the city of Antioch, and of the most holy Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem, as the attestation of each of them declares, shall remain firm for ever, through our decree and the sentence of the holy synod; to wit, that the most holy bishop Maximus, or rather the most holy church of Antioch, shall have under **its own jurisdiction **the two Phœnicias and Arabia; but the most holy Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, or rather the most holy Church which is under him, shall have under his own power the three Palestines, all imperial pragmatics and letters and penalties being done away according to the bidding of our most sacred and pious prince.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xv.html

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Wrong again:

The autocephalacy of Cyprus was confirmed (against Antioch) at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, without any schism, c. viii:

Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all. Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.

Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xii.html

And of course, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were set up at Nicea c. vi, without schism:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria **have jurisdiction **in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.viii.html

The same with Jerusalem:

The most magnificent and glorious judges said:…The arrangement arrived at through the agreement of the most holy Maximus, the bishop of the city of Antioch, and of the most holy Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem, as the attestation of each of them declares, shall remain firm for ever, through our decree and the sentence of the holy synod; to wit, that the most holy bishop Maximus, or rather the most holy church of Antioch, shall have under **its own jurisdiction **the two Phœnicias and Arabia; but the most holy Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, or rather the most holy Church which is under him, shall have under his own power the three Palestines, all imperial pragmatics and letters and penalties being done away according to the bidding of our most sacred and pious prince.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xv.html

And for the rest of the autocephalous churches Isa?

 

[anthony022071]

Wrong again:

The autocephalacy of Cyprus was confirmed (against Antioch) at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, without any schism, c. viii:

And of course, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were set up at Nicea c. vi, without schism:

The same with Jerusalem:

Those are not examples of autocephalic churches like those of the Orthodox. The churches of Alexandria,Antioch,Jerusalem,and Cyprus in those centuries were all under the over-arching jurisdiction of the pope. Of course they had their own regional jurisdiction and appointed their own bishops – but they were still accountable to Rome. Universal jurisdiction doesn’t mean continual micro-management of all the regional churches by the pope – that would be impossible anyway. It means that the pope has the responsibility to care for the whole Church,and the authority to intervene in the affairs of all local churches.

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.” Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

 

[anthony022071]

More examples of papal authority over an ecumenical council.

“Joining to yourself, therefore, the sovereign of our See, and assuming our place with authority, you will execute this sentence with accurate rigour: that within ten days, counted from the day of your notice, he shall condemn his [Nestorius’] false teachings in a written confession.” Pope Celestine, To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 11 (A.D. 430).

“The Holy Synod said: 'Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:-- 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse.” Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431).

Seventh Ecumenical Council: The Second Council of Nicea, 787

THE DIVINE SACRA SENT BY THE EMPERORS CONSTANTINE AND IRENE TO THE MOST HOLY AND MOST BLESSED HADRIAN, POPE OF OLD ROME.

"They who receive the dignity of the empire, or the honour of the principal priesthood from our Lord Jesus Christ, ought to provide and to care for those things which please him, and rule and govern the people committed to their care according to his will and good pleasure. Therefore, O most holy Head, it is incumbent upon us and you, that irreprehensibly we know the things which be his, and that in these we exercise ourselves, since from him we have received the imperatorial dignity, and you the dignity of the chief priesthood…

As then you are the veritable chief priest who presides in the place and in the see of the holy and superlaudable Apostle Peter, let your paternal blessedness come to us, as we have said before, and add your presence to all those other priests who shall be assembled together here, that thus the will of the Lord may be accomplished."

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Those are not examples of autocephalic churches like those of the Orthodox. The churches of Alexandria,Antioch,Jerusalem,and Cyprus in those centuries were all under the over-arching jurisdiction of the pope.

Begging the question: there is no metion to the authority you allege to the Pope of Rome.

Of course they had their own regional jurisdiction and appointed their own bishops – but they were still accountable to Rome.

And it says that where?

Universal jurisdiction doesn’t mean continual micro-management of all the regional churches by the pope – that would be impossible anyway. It means that the pope has the responsibility to care for the whole Church,and the authority to intervene in the affairs of all local churches.

The documents are not post-Vatican I.

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.” Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

Yes, Rome has been quite accustomed to saying nice things about herself. We smile and go on with life.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

More examples of papal authority over an ecumenical council.

“Joining to yourself, therefore, the sovereign of our See, and assuming our place with authority, you will execute this sentence with accurate rigour: that within ten days, counted from the day of your notice, he shall condemn his [Nestorius’] false teachings in a written confession.” Pope Celestine, To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 11 (A.D. 430).

So Rome has authority because she says so. Rather circular.

“The Holy Synod said: 'Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:-- 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse.” Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431).

Re: Ephesus. It is claimed that Pope Cyril only represented Pope Celestine, and yet we have this legate Philip who you just quoted as being the Pope’s legate.

So Celestine and the Fathers were of one mind. Your point?

Seventh Ecumenical Council: The Second Council of Nicea, 787

THE DIVINE SACRA SENT BY THE EMPERORS CONSTANTINE AND IRENE TO THE MOST HOLY AND MOST BLESSED HADRIAN, POPE OF OLD ROME.

"They who receive the dignity of the empire, or the honour of the principal priesthood from our Lord Jesus Christ, ought to provide and to care for those things which please him, and rule and govern the people committed to their care according to his will and good pleasure. Therefore, O most holy Head, it is incumbent upon us and you, that irreprehensibly we know the things which be his, and that in these we exercise ourselves, since from him we have received the imperatorial dignity, and you the dignity of the chief priesthood…

As then you are the veritable chief priest who presides in the place and in the see of the holy and superlaudable Apostle Peter, let your paternal blessedness come to us, as we have said before, and add your presence to all those other priests who shall be assembled together here, that thus the will of the Lord may be accomplished."

Odd how Rome often does not recognize an emperor over the council: except when they think the emperor is saying that the pope of Rome is supreme etc. Sort of like how we are faulted for “caesaropapism” yet faulted for not following it at Florence.

 

[anthony022071]

Begging the question: there is no metion to the authority you allege to the Pope of Rome.

And it says that where?

It’s a matter of historical facts,and it is acknowledged by Eastern Church Fathers and bishops.

Sozomen, Church History, Book 3. A.D. 450:

Athanasius, escaping from Alexandria, came to Rome. Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza went there at the same time. Asclepas, who was opposed to the Arians, had been accused by them of having thrown down an altar, and Quintian had been appointed in his place. Lucius, bishop of Adrianople, who had been deposed from his office on another charge, was also staying in Rome. The Roman bishop, on learning the accusation against each one, and finding that they were all like-minded about the doctrine of the council of Nicaea, admitted them to communion as of like orthodoxy. And alleging that the care for all belongs to him, because of the dignity of his see, he restored each to his own church. …
10…Julius, learning that Athanasius was not safe in Egypt, called him back to himself. He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, for just then he happened to have received it, and he accused them of having secretly introduced innovations contrary to the dogmas of the Nicene council, and of having violated the laws of the Church by not calling him to the synod. For there is a priestly law, making void whatever is effected against the mind of the bishop of Rome.

Gregory Nazianzus:

“Regarding the faith which they uphold, the ancient Rome has kept a straight course from of old, and still does so, uniting the whole West by sound teaching, as is just, since she presides over all and guards the universal divine harmony.” (Carmen de Vita Sua,382 A.D.)

Sophronius (c. 560-638),Patriarch of Jerusalem from 634-638,to Pope Martin I (r. 649-655):

I would like to denounce Monothelitism before the eminent Chair, the teacher of all the chairs; I mean your superior and divine chair, since it may completely heal the wound. Your chair has been accustomed from the beginning to rule with apostolic and canonical authority. It is very evident, indeed, that it is not only the keys to the kingdom of heaven that Peter, alone among all, received. Besides the keys of heaven, by which he can open and shut for the well-being of believers and the misfortune of unbelievers,this true head and director of the apostles, was the first entrusted with feeding the sheep of the entire Catholic Church … and the only one authorized to strengthen his colleagues and spiritual brothers when they become shaken, on account of the foreknowledge of God Incarnate who, for our sake, gave him power and priestly authority over them all” (Mansi, vol. 10, col. 896)

Yes, Rome has been quite accustomed to saying nice things about herself. We smile and go on with life.

Cyril and the council were in agreement with the legate’s words:

(Cyril) “The professions which have been made by Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West. Wherefore let those things which were defined by the most holy Coelestine, the God-beloved bishop, be carried into effect, and the vote east against Nestorius the heretic … be agreed to universally; for this purpose let there be added to the already prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today, and let them be shewn to their holiness, so that by their subscription according to custom, their canonical agreement with all of us may be manifest.”

Then Arcadius, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Roman Church, said, “According to the acts of this holy Synod, we necessarily confirm with our subscriptions their doctrines.”

At which point the Holy Synod said, “Since Arcadius and Projectus the most reverend and most religious bishops and legates and Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, have said that they are of the same mind with us, it only remains, that they redeem their promises and confirm the acts with their signatures, and then let the minutes of the acts be shewn to them.” (cf. EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS, SESSION III [Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 621.])

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’m in black

Begging the question: there is no metion to the authority you allege to the Pope of Rome.

And it says that where?

It’s a matter of historical facts,and it is acknowledged by Eastern Church Fathers and bishops.

Sozomen, Church History, Book 3. A.D. 450:

Athanasius, escaping from Alexandria, came to Rome. Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza went there at the same time. Asclepas, who was opposed to the Arians, had been accused by them of having thrown down an altar, and Quintian had been appointed in his place. Lucius, bishop of Adrianople, who had been deposed from his office on another charge, was also staying in Rome. The Roman bishop, on learning the accusation against each one, and finding that they were all like-minded about the doctrine of the council of Nicaea, admitted them to communion as of like orthodoxy. And alleging that the care for all belongs to him, because of the dignity of his see, he restored each to his own church. …
…He wrote to the bishops of the East, and rebuked them for having judged these bishops unjustly, and for harassing the Churches by abandoning the Nicæan doctrines. He summoned a few among them to appear before him on an appointed day, in order to account to him for the sentence they had passed, and threatened to bear with them no longer, unless they would cease to make innovations. This was the tenor of his letters. Athanasius and Paul were reinstated in their respective sees, and forwarded the letter of Julius to the bishops of the East. The bishops could scarcely brook such documents, and they assembled together at Antioch,. and framed a reply to Julius, beautifully expressed and composed with great legal skill, yet filled with considerable irony and indulging in the strongest threats. They confessed in this epistle, that the Church of Rome was entitled to universal honor, because it was the school of the apostles, and had become the metropolis of piety from the outset, although the introducers of the doctrine had settled there from the East. They added that the second place in point of honor ought not to be assigned to them, because they did not have the advantage of size or number in their churches; for they excelled the Romans in virtue and determination. They called Julius to account for having admitted the followers of Athanasius into communion, and expressed their indignation against him for having insulted their Synod and abrogated their decrees, and they assailed his transactions as unjust and discordant with ecclesiastical right. After these censures and protestations against such grievances, they proceeded to state, that if Julius would acknowledge the deposition of the bishops whom they had expelled, and the substitution of those whom they had ordained in their stead, they would promise peace and fellowship; but that, unless he would accede to these terms, they would openly declare their opposition. They added that the priests who had preceded them in the government of the Eastern churches had offered no opposition to the deposition of Novatian, by the Church of Rome. They made no allusion in their letter to any deviations they had manifested from the doctrines of the council of Nice, but merely stated they had various reasons to allege in justification of the course they had pursued
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.iii.viii.viii.html

10…Julius, learning that Athanasius was not safe in Egypt, called him back to himself. He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, for just then he happened to have received it, and he accused them of having secretly introduced innovations contrary to the dogmas of the Nicene council, and of having violated the laws of the Church by not calling him to the synod. For there is a priestly law, making void whatever is effected against the mind of the bishop of Rome.

Julius having been apprised that Athanasius was far from being in safety in Egypt, sent for him to his own city. He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, for just then he happened to have received their epistle, and accused them of having clandestinely introduced innovations contrary to the dogmas of the Nicene council, and of having violated the laws of the Church, by neglecting to invite him to join their Synod; for he alleged that there is a sacerdotal canon which declares that whatever is enacted contrary to the judgment of the bishop of Rome is null. He also reproached them for having deviated from justice in all their proceedings against Athanasius, both at Tyre and Mareotis, and stated that the decrees enacted at the former city had been annulled, on account of the calumny concerning the hand of Arsenius, and at the latter city, on account of the absence of Athanasius. Last of all he reprehended the arrogant style of their epistle.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.iii.viii.x.html
So Rome alleged. It’s effect? Nothing.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’m in black

Gregory Nazianzus:

“Regarding the faith which they uphold, the ancient Rome has kept a straight course from of old, and still does so, uniting the whole West by sound teaching, as is just, since she presides over all and guards the universal divine harmony.” (Carmen de Vita Sua,382 A.D.)

And St. Gregory was not in communion with Rome why?

Sophronius (c. 560-638),Patriarch of Jerusalem from 634-638,to Pope Martin I (r. 649-655):

I would like to denounce Monothelitism before the eminent Chair, the teacher of all the chairs; I mean your superior and divine chair, since it may completely heal the wound. Your chair has been accustomed from the beginning to rule with apostolic and canonical authority. It is very evident, indeed, that it is not only the keys to the kingdom of heaven that Peter, alone among all, received. Besides the keys of heaven, by which he can open and shut for the well-being of believers and the misfortune of unbelievers,this true head and director of the apostles, was the first entrusted with feeding the sheep of the entire Catholic Church … and the only one authorized to strengthen his colleagues and spiritual brothers when they become shaken, on account of the foreknowledge of God Incarnate who, for our sake, gave him power and priestly authority over them all” (Mansi, vol. 10, col. 896)

And yet the Sixth Council anathematized Pope Martin’s predecessor Honorius for poisoning the sheep.

Yes, Rome has been quite accustomed to saying nice things about herself. We smile and go on with life.

Cyril and the council were in agreement with the legate’s words:

(Cyril) “The professions which have been made by Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West. Wherefore let those things which were defined by the most holy Coelestine, the God-beloved bishop, be carried into effect, and the vote east against Nestorius the heretic … be agreed to universally; for this purpose let there be added to the already prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today, and let them be shewn to their holiness, so that by their subscription according to custom, their canonical agreement with all of us may be manifest.”

Then Arcadius, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Roman Church, said, “According to the acts of this holy Synod, we necessarily confirm with our subscriptions their doctrines.”

At which point the Holy Synod said, “Since Arcadius and Projectus the most reverend and most religious bishops and legates and Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, have said that they are of the same mind with us, it only remains, that they redeem their promises and confirm the acts with their signatures, and then let the minutes of the acts be shewn to them.” (cf. EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS, SESSION III [Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 621.])

Rome agreed with Pope Cyril and the Council (the Pope of Rome had wanted them just to implement his decision, but they made their own).

 

[anthony022071]

And St. Gregory was not in communion with Rome why?

Gregory Nazianzus was not in communion with the church of Rome? which always had the sound teaching and presides over the whole Church and guards the universal divine harmony? Who would have thought he was unorthodox and schismatic?

And yet the Sixth Council anathematized Pope Martin’s predecessor Honorius for poisoning the sheep.

They certainly didn’t anathematize the Chair of Peter.

Rome agreed with Pope Cyril and the Council (the Pope of Rome had wanted them just to implement his decision, but they made their own).

It’s a fortunate thing that Rome was in agreement with a council decision that the pope had demanded.

 

[anthony022071]

From the 6th Ecumenical Council:

[The answer of all the rest of the Bishops subject to the See of Constantinople. (Col. 735.)]

“And we, most pious Lord, accepting the teaching of the suggestion sent to your most gentle Fortitude by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, and of that other suggestion which was adopted by the council subject to him, and following the sense therein contained, so we are minded, so we profess, and so we believe that in our one Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, undividedly, and two natural wills and two natural operations; and all who have taught, and who now say, that there is but one will and one operation in the two natures of our one Lord Jesus Christ our true God, we anathematize.”

Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-681) to Pope St. Agatho:

“Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed [father]; and therefore Christ our true God gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter [of Agatho’s] was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up.”

…“Thus, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and instructed by your doctrine, we have cast forth the vile doctrines of impiety, making smooth the right path of orthodoxy, being in every way encouraged and helped in so doing by the wisdom and power of our most pious and serene Emperor Constantine.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And St. Gregory was not in communion with Rome why?

Gregory Nazianzus was not in communion with the church of Rome? which always had the sound teaching and presides over the whole Church and guards the universal divine harmony? Who would have thought he was unorthodox and schismatic?

Ask our sponsers:
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 was bishop of Constantinople 379-381.

And yet the Sixth Council anathematized Pope Martin’s predecessor Honorius for poisoning the sheep.

They certainly didn’t anathematize the Chair of Peter.

No, just the one sitting in it with the right to speak ex cathedra Sancti Petri.

Rome agreed with Pope Cyril and the Council (the Pope of Rome had wanted them just to implement his decision, but they made their own).

It’s a fortunate thing that Rome was in agreement with a council decision that the pope had demanded.

Yes, see now why we don’t need a autocrat in Rome?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

From the 6th Ecumenical Council:

[The answer of all the rest of the Bishops subject to the See of Constantinople. (Col. 735.)]

“And we, most pious Lord, accepting the teaching of the suggestion sent to your most gentle Fortitude by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, and of that other suggestion which was adopted by the council subject to him, and following the sense therein contained, so we are minded, so we profess, and so we believe that in our one Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, undividedly, and two natural wills and two natural operations; and all who have taught, and who now say, that there is but one will and one operation in the two natures of our one Lord Jesus Christ our true God, we anathematize.”

Fathers of the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-681) to Pope St. Agatho:

“Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed [father]; and therefore Christ our true God gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter [of Agatho’s] was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up.”

…“Thus, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and instructed by your doctrine, we have cast forth the vile doctrines of impiety, making smooth the right path of orthodoxy, being in every way encouraged and helped in so doing by the wisdom and power of our most pious and serene Emperor Constantine.”

Just like Leo’s Tome, the Fathers examined Pope St. Agatho’s letter and found it Orthodox.

They did NOT just look at the return address and decide that.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry;3318341:

Begging the question: there is no metion to the authority you allege to the Pope of Rome.

And it says that where?

It’s a matter of historical facts,and it is acknowledged by Eastern Church Fathers and bishops.

Sozomen, Church History, Book 3. A.D. 450:

I came across something interesting, from the pen of Pope St. Gregory:

EPISTLE XXXIV. To EULOGIUS, BISHOP. Gregory to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, and Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch . The charity wherewith I am greatly bound to you allows me by no means to keep silence, that your Holiness may know all that is going on among us, and, deceived by no false rumours, may keep more perfectly the way of your justice and rectitude, as you have perfectly begun to do. Now the representatives (responsales) of our brother and fellow-bishop Cyriacus came to me, bringing me his synodical epistle. And indeed between us and him there is, as your Blessedness knows, serious difference on account of the appellation of a profane name; but I thought that his representatives sent in the cause of the faith ought to be received, lest the sin of elation which has arisen in the Constantinopolitan Church almost against all priests, might cause l a shaking of the faith and a breach in ecclesiastical unity. I also caused the same representatives, inasmuch as they very humbly requested it, to celebrate with me the solemnities of mass, because, as I have taken care to intimate to the most serene lord the Emperor, it was right that the representatives of our brother and fellow priest Cyriacus should communicate with me, since by God’s help I have not fallen into the error of elation. But my deacon ought not to celebrate the solemnities of mass with our aforesaid-brother Cyriacus, since, through a profane title, he has either committed or accedes to the sin of pride; lest if he (my deacon) proceeds with one who is in such a position of elation, we might seem (which God forbid) to confirm the vanity of that foolish name. But I have taken care to admonish our said brother to correct himself of such elation, since, if he does not correct it, he will in no way have peace with us. Furthermore, our said brother in his synodical letters has by the grace of God expressed himself in all respects as a Catholic. But he has condemned a certain Eudoxius, whom we find neither condemned in synods, nor repudiated by his predecessors in their synodical letters . It is true that the canons of the council of Constantinople condemn the Eudoxiaus; but they say nothing as to who their author Eudoxius was. But the Roman Church does not possess so far these same canons, or the acts of that council, nor has it accepted them, though it has accepted this same synod with regard to what was defined by it against Macedonius. It does certainly repudiate the other heresies therein spoken of, which had already been condemned by other Fathers: but so far it knows nothing about the Eudoxians. Some things are indeed told in Sozomen’s history about a certain Eudoxius, who is said to have usurped the episcopate of the Church of Constantinople. But this history itself the Apostolic See refuses to accept, since it contains many false statements, and praises Theodore of Mopsuestia too much, and says that he was a great doctor of the Church even to the day of his death. It remains then that, if any one receives that history, he contradicts the synod held in the times of Justinian of pious memory concerning the three chapters. But one who cannot contradict this synod must needs reject that history. Moreover in the Latin language we have so far found nothing about this Eudoxius, either in Philaster or in the blessed Augustine, who wrote much about heresies, Let therefore your Charity inform me in your letters if any one of the approved Fathers among the Greeks has made mention of him. Furthermore three years ago, with reference to the case of the monks of Isauria, who were accused as being heretics, my brother and fellow-bishop the lord John once sent me letters for my satisfaction, in which he attempted to shew that they had contradicted the definitions of the synod of Ephesus; and he forwarded to me certain chapters, purporting to be those of the same synod, which they were said to oppose . Now among other things it was in these chapters asserted concerning the soul of Adam, that by sin it did not die, in that the devil does not enter into the heart of man; and that whoso said it was so was anathema. When this was read to me I was much grieved. For if the soul of Adam, who was the first to sin, did not die by sin, how was it said to him concerning the forbidden tree, In the day that ye eat thereof ye shall surely die (Gen. ii. 17)? And certainly Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden tree, and yet in their flesh they lived afterwards more than nine hundred years. It is therefore evident that in his flesh he did not die. If then he did not die in his soul, the impious conclusion follows that God pronounced a false sentence concerning him, when He said that in the day that he ate he should die. But far be this error, far be it from the true faith. For what we say is, that the first than died in soul in the day that he sinned, and that through him the whole human race is condemned in this penalty of death and corruption. But through the second man we trust that we can be freed, both now from the death of the soul, and hereafter from all corruption of the flesh in the eternal resurrection: – as moreover we said to the aforesaid representatives; 'We say that the soul of Adam died by sin, not from the substance of living, but from the quality of living. For, inasmuch as substance is one thing, and quality another, his soul did not so die as not to be, but so died as not to be blessed. Yet this same Adam returned afterwards to life through penitence…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

…Seeing then that, having examined the Ephesine synod, we found nothing of the kind to be contained therein, we caused to be brought to us also a very old Codex of the same synod from the Church of Ravenna, and we found it to agree with the report of the synod which we have so as to differ in no respect, and to contain nothing else in its decree of anathema and rejection, except that they reject the twelve chapters of Cyril of blessed memory. But this whole argument we set forth much more fully and particularly to his representatives when they were with us, and most fully satisfied them. Wherefore lest either these or any like things should creep in yonder, so as to cause offence to holy Church, it is necessary for us to indicate these things to your Holiness. And, although we know our brother and fellow-bishop Cyriacus to be orthodox, yet on account of others we ought to be cautious, that the seeds of error may be trampled down before they spring up to public view. I received the letters of your Holiness on the arrival here of our common son the deacon Sabinianus; but, as their bearer is already prepared for departure and cannot be detained, I will reply when the deacon, my responsalis, comes.

clerus.org/clerus/dati/2001-02/13-999999/e7.html

 

[Hesychios]

Just like Leo’s Tome, the Fathers examined Pope St. Agatho’s letter and found it Orthodox.

They did NOT just look at the return address and decide that.

Quite so!

Those things had to be studied for acceptability. Just like the writings of any other bishop.

Today, Roman Catholics are under compulsion to accept whatever a Pope writes, as one possessing universal and immediate jurisdiction in all dioceses. He is no longer the same kind of Bishop of Roma, because he is no longer subject to serious impartial and independent scrutiny within his own church.

Michael

 

[mtr01]

Quite so!

Those things had to be studied for acceptability. Just like the writings of any other bishop.

Today, Roman Catholics are under compulsion to accept whatever a Pope writes, as one possessing universal and immediate jurisdiction in all dioceses. He is no longer the same kind of Bishop of Roma, because he is no longer subject to serious impartial and independent scrutiny within his own church.

Michael

Interesting, for behold just exactly what was in Pope St. Agatho’s letter that apparently was well scrutinized and accepted as “divinely written” by the council:

"For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ [Rome], has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.” Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.

 

[anthony022071]

Ask our sponsers:
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 was bishop of Constantinople 379-381.

So that had to do with the Arians,not Gregory. Rome never had a problem with Gregory. He was bishop of Constantinople for only a few months.

No, just the one sitting in it with the right to speak ex cathedra Sancti Petri.

They anathematized a dead pope,on flimsy evidence.

 

[anthony022071]

Just like Leo’s Tome, the Fathers examined Pope St. Agatho’s letter and found it Orthodox.

And the Fathers of the council were orthodox on account of their assent to Agatho’s letter.

They did NOT just look at the return address and decide that.

Indeed,it was good for them to actually read the letter.