Papal doctrines

[anthony022071]

I e-mailed Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore asking him to give me examples of pre-Schism ex cathedra papal doctrines:

Can you give me examples of pre-Schism popes setting forth doctrines of the faith or morals? What about Pope Callistus’ judgement on admitting adulterers to communion after penance,Pope Stephen’s judgement on the baptism of heretics,or Pope Leo’s Tome? Thanks.

M.B.: Hi, Anthony. Yes, those are all good examples. A great one would be Pope Innocent’s universal condemnation of Pelagianism. He writes (addressing and ratifying the African councils that condemned Pelagius):

“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated with all solicitude by bishops and especially by a true and just and Catholic council, preserving, as you have done, the example of ancient Tradition, and by being mindful of Ecclesiastical discipline, you have truly strengthened the vigor of our religion, no less in consulting us than before passing sentence. For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place desire to follow the Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of his name is derived. Following in his steps, we know how to condemn the evil and to approve the good. So also, you have, by your sacerdotal office, preserved the customs of the fathers, and have not spurned that which they decreed by a Divine, and not a human, sentence, that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of his See; that by authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that, from it, all other churches (like water flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head), should receive what they ought to enjoin, whom they ought to wash, and whom that water, worthy of pure bodies, should avoid as defiled with uncleansable filth. I congratulate you, therefore, dearest brethren, that you have directed letters to us by our brother and fellow-bishop Julius, and that, while caring for the churches which you rule, you also show your solicitude for the well-being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the churches of the world at once.” —Pope Innocent to the African bishops, Ep. 181.

Now, it should be noted that Innocent’s immediate successor, Pope Zosimus, re-opened and re-examined the case against Pelagius because many Greek bishops (Zosimus was himself a Greek) thought that Innocent was too hasty in condemning Pelagius, and this move by Pope Zosimus outraged St. Augustine and his fellow Africans, who insisted that Innocent’s ruling had ended the matter once and for all. But, Pope Zosimus eventually re-affirmed Pope Innocent’s ruling, and so Augustine and his fellow Africans were vindicated.

 

[anthony022071]

In another e-mail,Mark Bonocore gave a long list of examples of ex cathedra doctrines and papal primacy. Here is an excerpt:

< Every time Rome ratified an Ecumenical Council it pronounced an infallible, ex cathedra dogma; for an Ecumenical Council was only made official and binding when it was accepted and ratified by Rome. Our Eastern Orthodox brethren tend to forget this. For example, the fathers at the Council of Chalcedon write to Pope Leo the Great and declare:

“Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we
therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have
yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill
what is fitting for the children.” --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.

This is the consistent Tradition of the Eastern Church --that an Ecumenical Council must be ratified by Rome. For example, St. Methodius (Apostle to the Slavs) declares:

“Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council.” (Methodius —N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210)

Thus properly understood, the infallible authority of any and all Ecumenical councils rested ultimately with the Chair of Peter at Rome. And this Chair was known to operate both in accord with an Ecumenical Council and without one. And given that Ecumenical Councils were originally political exercises of imperial Roman law, and the Church did not employ them for the first 300 odd years of Christian history, it therefore follows that they are not essential to the Church’s ability to pronounce dogma. Indeed, we see many cases in which the See of Peter at Rome defined and ended dogmatic disputes before the age of Constantine: For example, …

In A.D. c. 188, Pope St. Victor threatens to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal Church for celebrating Easter (Pascha) on a different date from Rome and the rest of the Church. While he is persuaded not to do it by St. Ireneaus, no one ever questions his authority to do it; and Victor was clearly exhibiting a concern and a presumptive responsibility for the universal unity and orthodoxy of the Church --a responsibility that his contemporaries clearly recognized.

This same Pope Victor also condemned and excommunicated the adherents of Adoptive Monarchianism.

In c. A.D. 217, Pope St. Callistus invoked his Petrine authority to bind and loosen to relax the original Apostolic discipline for the Sacrament of Confession, permitting it to be administered repeatedly in a person’s lifetime (which is why both Catholics and Orthodox can receive Confession repeatedly today) and thus defining the Church’s position against Hippolytian ditheism.

This same Pope Callistus also condemned the heresy of Sabellianism, which taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are merely three manifestations of (or three “masks” worn by) the same Divine Person.

In c. 230, Pope St. Pontian calls a synod in Rome to ratify and approve the decision of a synod in Alexandria which denied the validity of Origen’s priesthood. This decision by Pontian ended a bitter dispute between the Alexandrians and the churches in Palestine, Arabia, and Greece, which had supported Origen.

In A.D, 251, the anti-Pope Novatian sends legates to all the city-churches in the East and deposes any bishop who re-admitted apostates to communion when they repented, thus promoting the heresy of Novatianism. Even though Novatian was an anti-Pope, and even though he was wrong, his authority was still recognized by all these Eastern churches, who presumed that he was the true Pope of Rome. And, when it was realized that St. Cornelius was the true Pope, these churches immediately broke with the disciples of Novatian and sided with Cornelius, who declared Novatianism to be a heresy because it violated the principal established by Pope Callistus back in A.D. 217.

In A.D. 255, Pope St. Stephen issues a universal degree declaring that Baptism administered by heretics (if in the correct, Apostolic formula: Matt 28:19) is valid, and such heretics are not to be re-Baptized. While disputed by St. Cyprian and Firmilian of Cappadocian Caesarea, all the other bishops of the world (including the Eastern patriarchs, like St. Dionysius of Alexandria) adhered to this ruling, and this is why even the vast majority of Eastern Orthodox bishops do not re-Baptized (but merely Confirm / Chrismate) properly Baptized converts from heretical communions today. >

To be continued.

 

[anthony022071]

Continued from previous post:

Mark Bonocore:

< In c. A.D. 265, Pope St. Dionysius of Rome issues a formal rebuke to Patriarch St. Dionysius of Alexandria for his erroneous teaching of Subordination. Dionysius of Alexandria, trying to correct some Sabellians in Egypt, went too far and taught an opposite error --that Christ is unequal to the Father. Outraged by this, some Alexandrians appealed to Rome, and Pope Dionysius forced Dionysius of Alexandria to recant his teaching --an event which St. Athanasius later described as Rome’s condemnation of Arianism even before Arianism had arisen.

In c. A.D. 270, Pope St. Felix I ratifies an Antiochian synod’s decision to depose Paul of Samosata (Patriarch of Antioch) for holding to the heresy of Adoptive Monarchianism. Paul, however, refused to step down as Patriarch of Antioch or to return Church property. In response to this, the Antiochian clergy appealed to pagan Emperor Aurelian, who had many Catholic Christians on his staff, and the Emperor ruled that the true bishop of a city is whomever the Bishop of Rome recognizes as the true bishop of that city. And so, Paul was formally deposed by imperial Roman law --the same law which would form the foundation of canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea, which reads:

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail that the
Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these, since this is also the
custom of the Bishop of Rome.” (Nicaea, Canon 6).

All of this is based on Pope St. Felix’s ultimate condemnation of Paul of Samosata.

In c. A.D. 313-14, the Donatist heretics in Africa appeal to Rome, but Pope St. Miltiades rules against them, and they are excommunicated from the Church universally when the bishops at the Council of Milan accept the Papal ruling.

In A.D. 321-22, Pope St. Sylvester of Rome accepts and ratifies Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria’s 100-bishop Egyptian synod which condemns Arius and the Arian heresy. This should have ended the matter, but Arius and his supporters appealed to Emperor Constantine, who called the Council of Nicaea (325) to re-examine this matter as a matter of imperial law.

This same Pope Sylvester eventually ratifies the Council of Nicaea, which merely re-affirmed the ruling against Arius that he already gave in 321-22.

In A.D. 340-41, Pope St. Julius scolds the imperial court and the semi-Arian bishops at the Council of Tyre for deposing St. Athanasius from his see of Alexandria and replacing him with an Arian bishop without Rome’s permission. Julius insists that no such action was permissible without the authority of Rome, which possesses the final authority over Alexandria. Because of this, by 346, the Eastern powers back down and Athanasius is permitted to return to his see.

In A.D. 382, Pope St. Damasus I calls a synod to a) ratify the Council of Constantinople I (which is regarded as a regional council at the time, since the West did not directly participate in it) and b) to call for the definition of a universal canon of Scripture that can be held in common by the entire Church (a.k.a. the Bible). In ratifying the Council of Constantinople and its condemnations of Arianism and Macedonianism, Pope Damasus rejects the canon that tries to make Constantinople the primate in the Eastern Church, and defends the traditional Eastern primacy of Alexandria.

In c. A.D. 392, Pope St. Siricius condemns and excommunicates Bishop Bonosius of Sardica from the universal Church for denying Mary’s perpetual virginity.

In c. A.D. 401-404, Pope St. Innocent formally ratifies the Biblical canon defined at the Council of Carthage, making this Biblical canon normative for the universal Church. The West and the patriarchate of Alexandria accept it immediately; Antioch and Constantinople (because of internal schism dividing the Antiochian sphere of the Church) do not accept or implement the Carthagianian canon until A.D. 692. But, it is the canon that Innocent ratified that is accepted by the East.

This same Pope Innocent, in A.D. 404, restores St. John Chrysostom to the see of Constantinople, overriding the condemnation of Patriarch Theophilus of Antioch.

And, in A.D. 417, this same Pope Innocent ratifies the ruling of the African bishops and formally condemns Pelagianism on behalf of the universal Church. His immediate successor, Pope Zosimus, re-affirms this condemnation. >

To be continued.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Easily the best thread ever.

 

[anthony022071]

Continued

Mark Bonocore:

< In A.D. 430, St. Cyril of Alexandria is invested with the authority of Pope St. Celestine I and orders Nestorius of Constant(name removed by moderator)le to recant his heresy or be excommunicated. St. Cyril also represents Pope Celestine at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, which formally condemns Nestorius, and at which the Roman deacon Philip declared:

“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 Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and to him
was given the power of loosing and binding sins; who down even to this day
and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most
blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds
his place.” (Acts of the Council of Ephesus, session 3).

In A.D. 432, Pope Sixtus III formally ratifies the Council of Ephesus.

In A.D. 448, Bishop Flavian of Constantinople condemns the arch-heretic Eutyches for the Monphysite heresy. Both sides appeal to Pope St. Leo the Great at Rome, who responds with his famous Tome defending the Hypostatic Union of Christ and the orthodox Faith. This should have ended the matter, but the Emperor and Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria frustrated the issue and used it against Bishop Flavian, who was their political enemy. Bishop Flavian of Constantinople and several other Eastern bishops are deposed by the so-called “Second Ecumenical” Council of Ephesus" in 449, known as the “Robber Council” because it would not read Pope Leo’s Tome or recognize the authority of the Roman legates. And so, Bishop Flavian and the other deposed bishops appeal again to Pope Leo the Great, and the result was the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451). In his appeal, Bishop Flavian of Constantinople wrote to the Pope as follows:

“When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the
Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to
Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way
when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your
Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference …but to
rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by
unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction …so that a
like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of
fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail
and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to
this ghastly wound. —Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449.

The other deposed bishops address Pope Leo in even stronger language, referencing his ultimate authority --that is, his ability to render the Robber Counil null and void and to restore them to their sees. >

 

[anthony022071]

Mark Bonocore:

< As for the Council of Chalcedon, its recognition of Papal authority is abundantly clear and obvious, as is the fact that Pope Leo ratified it in A.D. 452. …that is, all but Chalcedon’s canon 28 which, again, tried to make Constantinople superior to Alexandria in the East. Like Damasus before him, Leo rejected his canon, but approved the rest of the Council. And, referring to the rejected canon, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople wrote to Leo to apologize for it, saying …

“As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently
ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure
that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and
quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the
church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally
supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it.
Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the
authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain
that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself
bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.” —Patriarch Anatolius
of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of
Chalcedon).

In A.D. 483, Pope Felix III excommunicates the ENTIRE EAST for denying the Council of Chalcedon and embracing the Acts of Union issued by Emperor Zeno and Bishop Acacius of Constantinople with the Monophysites. This is known as the Acacian Schism, and it last until A.D. 519, when 2,500 Eastern bishops renounced the Act of Union and sign the Libellius Hormisdae, formally requesting to re-enter into communion with Rome, which ALONE has remained orthodox. The Libellius Hormisdae (an EASTERN document signed by 2,500 EASTERN bishops) reads as follows:

“Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, ‘Thou art
Peter, and upon this Rock I will found my Church and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it, etc,’ cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is
proved by the results; for in the Apostolic See religion has always
been preserved without spot …In which (See) is set the perfect and true
solidity of the Christain religion.” (Hormisdas, Formula Hormisdae Ep.
Orient. Praescript. Denzinger’s Enchirid, p. 42) in Charles F. B. Allnatt,
ed. Cathedra Petri --Titles and Perrogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns &
Oats, 1879, p. 68.

It continues …

“In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled
and her holy doctrine proclaimed. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the
least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that
we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See
preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion:
promising also that the names of those who are cut off from the communion of
the Catholic Church, that is, not consentient with the Apostolic See, shall
not be recited during the Sacred Mysteries (i.e., the Mass). This is my
profession, I have subscribed with my own hand, and delivered to you,
Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the city of Rome.” (Ibid).

This brings us into the 500’s, in which the “Papist” language of the East becomes even more obvious and frequent. And,we can of course keep on going up until, and even somewhat after,1054. >

 

[holdencaulfield]

Those are some great quotes. I will have to read the second half when I have more time. If you open your eyes these are easy to see.

 

[holdencaulfield]

“Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council.” (Methodius —N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210)

That’s a great quote by St. Methodius, does anyone know where else it is cited? Seeing as though I don’t own that book.

 

[anthony022071]

I e-mailed M.B. again for more examples:

Can you send me examples of popes pronouncing infallible doctines and wielding their jurisdiction over other local churches from 500 AD to the time of the Great Schism? Thanks.

< Eastern Emperor Justin and his nephew and junior Emperor Justinian (the Great) write to Pope Hormisdas and declare …

“Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle
Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the
salvation of all.” (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope
Hormisdas).

And, in A.D. 523 to Hormisdas’ successor Pope St. John I …

“Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your
Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the
priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your
Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable
it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the
cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy
churches.” (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit.
1).

All of this was a matter of recognizing and re-emphasizing Papal authority which had been denied in the East during the Acacian schism (482-519).

About 525, Pope John I (the same Pope addressed above) took the advice of Dionysius Exiguus and promotes a new system for determining the date for Easter. The new system was universally accepted by all the city-churches of the East and West. The only ones who failed to implement were the Celtic bishops in Britain and Ireland, who lacked direct communication with the Roman Empire. This was technically the so-called “dark ages,” after all.

In 526, this same Pope John is sent by the Italian (Ostrogothic) king Theodoric as ambassador to the Byzantine court of Constantinople (to secure a peace treaty with the Byzantines). Upon arriving in Constantinople, the Pope was acclaimed by the crowds at the twelfth milestone outside the city, given a throne in the cathedral of Hagia Sophia that was higher than that of the bishop of Constantinople, and urge to celebrate a Mass in the Latin Rite! He was then asked to re-crown and anoint Emperor Justin, since he became Emperor while the East was cut off from Rome during the Acacian schism. This act, intended to assure Emperor Justin’s true imperial authority over the orthodox Christian world, will serve as the precedent for the crowning of Charlemagne in A.D. 800.

In A.D. 535-36, Pope St. Agapitus deposes the Monophysite Bishop Anthimus of Constantinople from his see.

In A.D. 543-44, Pope Vigilius issues various decrees against Monophysism. He also stands with the Western bishops in opposing Emperor Justinian’s condemnation of the “Three Chapters” --the concern being that this would undermine the authority of Chalcedon, which declared their authors to be orthodox. Under pressure from the Emperor, Vigilius will later condemn the implicit doctrines of the “Three Chapters,” siding with the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, and the misunderstanding will result in a schism in Northern Italy that will last until A.D. 700 --the very thing which Vigilius wanted to avoid.

In A.D. 556. Pope Pelagius I works to heal the schism with northern Italy created over the “Three Chapters” controversy. Bishop Auxanus of Milan submits to the Pope. >

 

[anthony022071]

< In 588, Bishop John “the Faster” of Constantinople proclaims himself “Ecumenical Patriarch” with the sole authority to ratify Ecumenical Councils on behalf of the Empire. Pope Pelagius II condemns this novelty as a violation of Apostolic Tradition and Canon 6 of Nicaea. Pope Gregory the Great (c. 600) will do the same, gaining the support of all the other Eastern patriarchs. >

In A.D. 589, the Council of Toledo in Spain (a regional council) inserts the “Filioque clause” into the Nicene Creed. It seeks Rome’s ratification, and is granted it.

In A.D. 590, Pope St. Gregory the Great works to heal the schism with the other northern Italian city-churches. He reminds them of Rome’s infallibility, asking them to “remember that the faith of Peter cannot fail or change.” Because of this, several northern Italian bishops return to communion with Rome. One of them issues the following profession of faith to Pope Gregory:

“And, therefore, after I discovered the snare of division by which I was
held, I humbly and spontaneously was led by Divine grace to return to the
unity of the Apostolic See (Rome), lest I be thought to return not through a
pure intention but deceitfully, I swear, upon pain of the loss of my order,
and under the bond of anathema, and promise to thee, and through thee to
St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and to his vicar, the most
blessed Gregory or his successors, that I will never, through anyone’s
persuasion or in any other way, return to schism, from which I have been
delivered through the mercy of the Redeemer, but shall always remain, through
all things, in the unity of the Holy Catholic Church and the communion of the
Roman Pontiff.” (St. Gregory the Great, Register of Epistles, Book XII, Ep.
7)

About the same time, Pope Gregory the Great corresponds with a Byzantine Greek bishop on the island of Sicily (John of Syracuse) over the Emperor’s choice for a new Bishop of Constantinople. In regard to this new candidate, Pope Gregory says …

“As to what he says, that he is subject to the Apostolic See (Rome), I know of no bishop who is not subject to it, if there be any fault found in bishops.” (Pope Gregory I Ep. Ad. Joan.)

In A.D. 612, the Irish missionary St. Columbian sends the following letter to Pope Boniface IV, proclaiming the Irish people’s recognition of Roman primacy:

“We are Irish, inhabitants of the furthermost part of the world, receiving
nothing beyond the evangelic and apostolic doctrine. None of us has been a
heretic, none a Jew, none a schismatic; but the faith, just as it was at
first delivered by you (the Roman episcopate), the successors, to wit, of the
holy Apostles (Peter and Paul), is held unshaken. Purity is not to be
reputed to the stream, but to the fountainhead. We are, as I said before,
bound to the Chair of Peter. For although Rome is great and
illustrious, it is only through this Chair that she is great and bright among
us …and it can be said on account of Christ’s two Apostles (Peter & Paul),
you are almost heavenly, and Rome is the Head of the churches of all the
world …” (Epist to Boniface c. 600 A.D.) >

 

[anthony022071]

< In 638, St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, professes his faith in the primacy and infallible authority of Rome, writing as follows:

“Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from
the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these
inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope’s) letters and
teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus (the Head), and I kiss
them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the
latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides,
all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic
Church.” (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

…and …

“Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come
to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox
doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the
questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their
apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement
and destroyed from the foundation …the new heresy.” (Sophronius,[quoted by
Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council], Mansi, x.,
893)

Likewise, Sophronius’ disciple, Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine, makes this declaration to the Pope St. Martin I in 645:

“And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a
fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David,
that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of
Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head
and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been
accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical
or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles,
was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the Keys of Heaven,
alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it
justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also
commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter,’
saith He, ‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’ And again, because he had in a
manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and
unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual
brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate
for us with power and sacerdotal authority …And Sophronius of blessed
memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God (Jerusalem), and under whom
I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the
things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my
nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic See (Rome),
where are the foundations of holy doctrine.” (Stephen of Dora, to Pope Martin I at
the Lateran Council, Mansi, x., 893)

And, a few years earlier, in 649, Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus writes to Pope Theodore I, …

“O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an
immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine
Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars
of the Church been fixed.” (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil.
Lat. anno 649)

 

[anthony022071]

< And, in the following year, the Byzantine father St. Maximos the Confessor declares his faith in the primacy of Rome, writing …

“The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely
and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman
Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting
from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers,
according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and
piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all
the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone
to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of
Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she
has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she
opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and
she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most
High.” (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol.
90)

…and …

“How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from
old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having
surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles,
as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their
company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on
account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things
all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal
law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence,
those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is
of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi,
ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

…and …

“If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a
heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have
rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he
anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates
himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the
Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the
Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and
orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or
entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope
of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See,
which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy
synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal
and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all
the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.” (Maximus, Letter to
Peter, in Mansi x, 692). >

 

[anthony022071]

< In 654, Pope St. Martin, along with St. Maximos, is arrested by Byzantine soldiers for his opposition to the Monothelite error, then promoted by the Emperor. The Pope was brought to Constantinople, where he physically abused by the mob, then banished to Crimea, where he died and was hailed as a martyr. He is given a feast day in the Byzantine Liturgy soon after; and the liturgy of this feast day speaks of his infallible authority as Pope and Head of the Church. It reads:

“By what name shall I hail thee, Martin? Shall I call thee the glorious leader for all the Orthodox Faith? Shall I call thee the holy Coryphaeus (Head), the leader of Divine dogmas that speaketh no errors?” (Byzantine Liturgy for the Feast of St. Martin, Pope of Rome).

In 680-81, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III calls Pope Agatho “the Head of the Church.” And while this same council posthumously condemed Pope Honorius I for “heresy” (that is, for “assisting in the base assertions of the heretics” by not immediately condemning the Monothelites), it was clearly understood that Honorius was merely negligent and that he did not directly promote the heresy or speak with the authority of Rome. For example, Pope Agatho himself declares:

“The heretics have followed some passing expressions imprudently set down by one Pope [Honorius], who made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter. Against this I put the repeated, the continuous protest of Pope after Pope, authoritative, grave, deliberate. Their voice was intended to be, and was, the voice of the infallible Roman Church.” (Mansi, v. 11, p. 285).

In A.D. 692, Pope St. Sergius I is requested to, but refuses to ratify the Byzantine Council of Trullo, which (for the first time in Christian history) permitted married priests to have sex with their wives. The council is also rejected by Pope John VI (701) and John VII (707). And while Pope Constantine (in 709) gives his blessing to some of the canons of Trullo, he does not ratify it.

In 715, Bishop John VI of Constantinople declares …

“The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the
Lord commanded to confirm his brethren.” (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap.
ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

In 730, Pope St. Gregory II condemns the error of Iconoclasm and supports Bishop Germanus of Constantinople, who appeals to him against the Iconoclast Emperor.

In 731, Pope St. Gregory IIII calls a council in Rome and excommunicates the Emperor and all the Iconoclasts in the Eastern Church. This is done 56 years prior to the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II which defeats Iconoclasm in the Eastern Church.

In A.D. 751, Pope St. Zachery gives his blessing to the Frankish commander Pepin the Short to depose the last Merovigian king of the Franks and become king in his own right. The city-churches throughout France and Germany will only recognize Pepin as true king with the Pope’s blessing. >

 

[anthony022071]

< In 758, St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople writes …

“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine
brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical
decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency.
For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in
sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship
among the Apostles.” (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N.
Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

And, about the same time, the Byzantine monk and scholar, St. Theodore the Studite, has this to say:

Writing to Pope Leo III …

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after
entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his
successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred.
[Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the
Church of Heaven." (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Writing to Pope Paschal, …

"Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ’s sheep,
keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic
Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of
Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not
for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: ‘And thou being one
day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.’ Behold the hour and the
place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand
so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first
of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk.
ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

Writing to Emperor Michael, …

"Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by
Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O
Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held
the Chair, to whom the Lord said: “Thou art Peter …and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it.” (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

…and also …

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the
Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys
of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics)
have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the
promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope
St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”
(Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63). >

 

[anthony022071]

…and …

“In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the
Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has
not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has
been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the
providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and
pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole
Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of
refuge.” (Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

…and …

“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those
with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives
of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be
if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be
present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him
make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the
First See.” (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

About 865, St. Methodius, the brother of St. Cyril and one of the Apostles to the Slavs, writes …

“Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council.” (Methodius —N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 177).

…and …

“It is not true, as this Canon [canon 28 of Chalcedon] states, that the holy Fathers gave the primacy to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire; it is from on high, from divine grace, that this primacy drew its origin. Because of the intensity of his faith Peter, the first of the Apostles, was addressed in these words by our Lord Jesus Christ himself ‘Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep’. That is why in hierarchical order Rome holds the pre-eminent place and is the first See. That is why the leges of old Rome are eternally immovable, and that is the view of all the Churches” (Ibid)

And, on the very eve of the Schism, the Byzantine St. Symeon the New Theologian (949-1022), writes:

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of Pontiff. Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself.” (Symeon the New Theologian, Dialogue Against Heresies 23, PG 155:120 AC; cited in Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter).

 

[anthony022071]

The Greek historian Salminius Hermias Sozomen (A.D. ca. 375?-447/48), a contemporary of Leo IV:
“8. 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, … 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.”
(Sozomen, Church History, Book 3. A.D. 450. [P.G. 67. 1052; Bagster 113.])

 

[anthony022071]

Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 6 (A.D. 434):
“Once on a time then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine–and he was the first who held it --that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even. When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation–nothing but what has been handed down.”

 

[anthony022071]

Theodore Abu Qurrah, a Syrian Catholic bishop (died c. 820 A.D.)

You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

…As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the foundation of St. Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city’s throne is authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the church, by summoning the ecumenical council, and to strengthen them, even as we have demonstrated in other places.

 

[Dollinger]

These examples bring many problems, in fact.

Now, it should be noted that Innocent’s immediate successor, Pope Zosimus, re-opened and re-examined the case against Pelagius because many Greek bishops (Zosimus was himself a Greek) thought that Innocent was too hasty in condemning Pelagius, and this move by Pope Zosimus outraged St. Augustine and his fellow Africans, who insisted that Innocent’s ruling had ended the matter once and for all. But, Pope Zosimus eventually re-affirmed Pope Innocent’s ruling, and so Augustine and his fellow Africans were vindicated.

What is the point of an ex cathedra statement, if the next pope didnt know it was ex cathedra and definitiv? What does it say about the development of this doctrine?

In response to one of its deposed priests appealing to Pope Zosimus for reinstatement, the North African Church asserted its independent jurisdiction at the Synod of Carthage on 1st May 418 by passing the following canon:" (7)

“If priests, deacons, and inferior clerics, complain of a sentence of their own bishop, they shall, with the consent of their bishop, have recourse to the neighboring bishops, who shall settle the dispute. If they desire to make a further appeal it must only be to their primates or to African councils. But whosoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea [Rome] may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa.” ~ Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio GD Mansi III, 726, Florence, 1759-63.

What does it say about universal jurisdiction?

St Augustine also says in his Epistle 43: “Supposing those bishops who judged at Rome were not good judges, there remained still a plenary Council of the univeral Church where the cause could be sifted with the judges themselves, so that if they were convicted of having judged wrongly their sentence could be annulled”. ~Patrologiae Latinae Cursus Completus 33:169

Every time Rome ratified an Ecumenical Council it pronounced an infallible, ex cathedra dogma; for an Ecumenical Council was only made official and binding when it was accepted and ratified by Rome. Our Eastern Orthodox brethren tend to forget this. For example, the fathers at the Council of Chalcedon write to Pope Leo the Great and declare

It raises many problems for Rome, not for orthodoxy, and i’ll deal with it later.

“Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we
therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have
yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill
what is fitting for the children.” --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.

Nowhere does it state that if St Leo does not ratify it, the Council is not binding, nor oecumenical. And we will see it when Council of Trullo will be brought on the table.

This is the consistent Tradition of the Eastern Church --that an Ecumenical Council must be ratified by Rome. For example, St. Methodius (Apostle to the Slavs) declares:

“Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council.” (Methodius —N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210)

Non authentic quote, so irelevant.

In A.D. c. 188, Pope St. Victor threatens to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal Church for celebrating Easter (Pascha) on a different date from Rome and the rest of the Church. While he is persuaded not to do it by St. Ireneaus, no one ever questions his authority to do it; and Victor was clearly exhibiting a concern and a presumptive responsibility for the universal unity and orthodoxy of the Church --a responsibility that his contemporaries clearly recognized.

St Victor was rebuked by the church:

Eusebius writes:

“**Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.”

The key word here is “ATTEMPTED”. He tried, and he failed.

“10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.”
newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm

He had universal and immediate power over all churches but was rebuked when trying to apply it? Does it make sense?

In A.D, 251, the anti-Pope Novatian sends legates to all the city-churches in the East and deposes any bishop who re-admitted apostates to communion when they repented, thus promoting the heresy of Novatianism. Even though Novatian was an anti-Pope, and even though he was wrong, his authority was still recognized by all these Eastern churches, who presumed that he was the true Pope of Rome. And, when it was realized that St. Cornelius was the true Pope, these churches immediately broke with the disciples of Novatian and sided with Cornelius, who declared Novatianism to be a heresy because it violated the principal established by Pope Callistus back in A.D. 217.

Same things happened during the so called Meletian schism; but Rome was wrong on this. Irelevant so.

Continued…

 

[Dollinger]

In A.D. 255, Pope St. Stephen issues a universal degree declaring that Baptism administered by heretics (if in the correct, Apostolic formula: Matt 28:19) is valid, and such heretics are not to be re-Baptized. While disputed by St. Cyprian and Firmilian of Cappadocian Caesarea

It was not only disputed, but they denied the authority of Stephen to do impose it on the whole Church.

St. Firmillian wrote concerning this to St. Cyprian of Carthage and the African bishops:

“***We (bishops of Asia) receive those things which you have written as if they were our own.”On the other hand, “they who are at Rome *do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles”. “But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth, holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the Apostles.”

Stephen was “not ashamed to afford patronage to such (i.e. heretics and opponents of God) in opposition to the Church, and for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood and in addition, to call Cyprian ‘a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker.’ And he, conscious that all these characters are in himself, has been… falsely objecting to another those things which he himself ought deservedly to hear**.”

St. Firmillian then writes as if addressing Pope Stephen:

“Consider with what want of judgment you (Stephen) dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?-whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?..[W]hat strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he admonished, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all humility and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”

St. Firmillian then continues:

“25. How carefully has Stephen fulfilled these salutary commands and warnings of the Apostle, keeping in the first place lowliness of mind and meekness! For what is more humble or meek than to have disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of them in various kinds of discord: at one time with the eastern churches, as we are sure you know; at another time with you [St. Cyprian] who are in the south…This is to have kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to cut himself off from the unity of love, and to make himself a stranger in all respects from his brethren, and to rebel against the Sacrament and the Faith with the madness of contumacious discord! With such a man can there be one Spirit and one body, in whom perchance there is not even one mind, so slippery, and shifting, and uncertain is it?”

The Church later approved the actions of St. Cyprian and St. Firmillian (see Canon 1 of St. Basil of Caesarea, Canon 1 of Carthage, Canon 2 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Canon 1 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council).

And, the council in trullo was apporved by the Pope of Rome:

NPNF2, Vol 15, p357, contains the following quotes from Hefele (A Roman Catholic scholar):

“Nearly a century later Pope Hadrian I. distinctly recognized all of the Trullan decrees in his letter to Terasius of Constantinople and attributes them to the Sixth Synod: “All the Holy Six Synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a lamb being pointed to by the precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images.” Here the reference is unmistakably to the Trullan canon LXXXII.”

What do we do now of the ex cathedra statement of Pope Stephen?