Papal doctrines

[Dollinger]

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.

Totaly irelevant, in light of the meletian schism:

The Arians were not slow to avenge themselves. On vague pretexts the emperor banished Meletius to his native Armenia. He had occupied his see less than a month.
This exile was the immediate cause of a long and deplorable schism between the Catholics of Antioch, henceforth divided into Meletians and Eustathians.
Though the election of Meletius was beyond contestation, the hot-headed Lucifer Cagliari yielded to the solicitations of the opposing faction, and instead of temporizing and awaiting Meletius’s approaching return from exile, assisted by two confessors he hastily consecrated as Bishop of Antioch the Eustathian leader, Paulinus. This unwise measure was a great calamity, for it definitively established the schism. Meletius and his adherents were not responsible, and it is a peculiar injustice of history that this division should be known as the Meletian schism when the Eustathians or Paulinians were alone answerable for it. Meletius’s return soon followed, also the arrival of Eusebius of Vercelli, but he could accomplish nothing under the circumstances.
Just then St. Athanasius came to Antioch by order of the emperor, and expressed to Meletius his wish of entering into communion with him. Meletius, ill-advised, delayed answering him, and St. Athanasius went away leaving with Paulinus, whom he had not yet recognized as bishop, the declaration that he admitted him to his communion. Such blundering resulted in sad consequences for the Meletian cause. The moderation constantly shown by Athanasius, who thoroughly believed in Meletius’s orthodoxy, was not found in his successor, Peter of Alexandria, who did not conceal his belief that Meletius was an heretic.
This new exile, owing to a lull in the persecution, was of short duration, and probably in 367 Meletius took up again the government of his see. It was then that John, the future Chrysostom, entered the ranks of the clergy.
This important conversion won over to the intruders St. Jerome and Pope Damasus; the very next year, and without any declaration concerning the schism, the pope showed a decided preference for Paulinus, recognized him as bishop, greeted him as brother, and considered him papal legate in the East.Great was the consternation of Meletius and his community, which in the absence of the natural leader was still governed by Flavius and Diodorus, encouraged by the presence of the monk Aphrates and the support of St. Basil.
St. Jerome entered into the conflict, perhaps without having a thorough knowledge of the situation. Rejecting Meletius, Vitalian, and Paulinus, he made a direct appeal to Pope Damasus in a letter still famous, but which the pope did not answer.
Discontented, Jerome returned to Antioch, let himself be ordained presbyter by Paulinus, and became the echo of Paulinist imputations against Meletius and his following.
In 379 Meletius held a council of 150 bishops in order to assure the triumph of orthodoxy in the East, and published a profession of faith which was to meet the approval of the Council of Constantinople (382). The end of the schism was near at hand.either bishop made it possible for the survivor to exercise full authority without hurting pride or discipline. This solution Meletius recognized as early as 381, but his friendly and peace- making proposals were rejected by Paulinus who refused to come to any agreement or settlement.
In the absence of the Bishop of Alexandria, the presidency rightfully fell to the Bishop of Antioch, whom the Emperor Theodosius received with marked deference, nor was the imperial favour unprofitable to Meletius in his quality of president of the assembly. It began by electing Gregory of Nazianzus Bishop of Constantinople, and to the great satisfaction of the orthodox it was Meletius who enthroned him.The Council immediately proceeded to confirm the Nicene faith, but during this important session Meletius died almost suddenly. Feeling his end was near, he spent his remaining days re-emphasizing his eagerness for unity and peace.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm

**This gave rise to fresh troubles, and excited the indignation of the bishop of Rome. Chrysostom labored for the reconciliation of Rome and Alexandria to Flavian. But the party of Paulinus, after his death in 389, elected Evarius as successor († 392), and the schism continued down to the year 413 or 415, when the bishop Alexander succeeded in reconciling the old orthodox remnant with the successor of Meletius. The two parties celebrated their union by a splendid festival, and proceeded together in one majestic stream to the church. **
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.ix.vi.html

So the 2nd oecumenical council was presided by a saint who was not in communion with Rome, with no participation of Rome, nor any legate. And st Meletius died out of communion with Rome.

 

[Dollinger]

Pope Damasus rejects the canon that tries to make Constantinople the primate in the Eastern Church, and defends the traditional Eastern primacy of Alexandria.

And the Fathers used this canon for the 28th of Chalcedone nonetheless. So St Damasus failed.

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.

Already dealt with.

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.

It is a robber council because it taught falsehood.

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 the east didnt care about St Leo’s opinion, even bishops under Rome’s juridiction applied this canon, and St Leo complained about it.

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)

It was forced uponthe bishop of Constantinople and others by force and violence thru the Imperial State.

"***First, I note that Patriarch of Constantinople, John affixes his signature with the designation “fellow minister” in reference to the Pope. That by itself may seem unimportant but when John defines his see as being equal with Rome, it takes on a significant meaning.

For I hold that the most holy churches of God, that is yours of Elder Rome and this of New Rome, are one; I define the See of the Apostle Peter and this of the Imperial city to be one see…

John also notes his adherence to the decisions and decrees of all of the ecumenical councils with respect to both the “confirmation of the faith and the constitution of the church…” This has import for canon 28 of Chalcedon. It is also noteworthy for future controversies down the road that John remarks that

I suffer no disturbance with their wise decisions, for I know that such as attempt to interfere with a single tittle of their decrees have fallen away from the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God.

It is also noteworthy that not all of the eastern churches subscribed to the Formula. The Church of Jerussalem would not do so even under threat of imperial force. And it is important to recall that Justinian designated the church of Jerusalem as “the Mother of the Christian name, from which no one dares to separate.” (PL 63, 503) This is important to keep in mind, say during the monothelite controversy under the patriarch of Jersualem Sophronius as opposed to Pope Honorius of Rome.

A second shorter dogmatic formula was drafted which would restore communion with Rome, but which curiously did not include any of the petrine language employed in the Formula of Hormisdas. It also did not include demands to strike various Eastern bishops from the diptychs as was demanded in the Formula of Hormisdas. This was the formula that the vast majority of Eastern bishops in fact subscribed to. And so the majority of East never signed or agreed to the Formula of Hormisdas and the majorty of the Roman conditions were never met***."
energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/some-notes-on-the-acacian-schism/

 

[Dollinger]

< 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).

The sameJustinian who designated the church of Jerusalem as “the Mother of the Christian name, from which no one dares to separate.” (PL 63, 503)?

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.

***The Fifth Council - Pope held hostage, then caves

"Upon his arrival in Constantinople in 547 Pope Vigilius refused to condemn the three chapters and refused to enter communion with Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople and others who signed the edict. In 548 however Vigilius reversed his position and issued a document known as Judicatum in which he formally anathematized the three chapters. In this action he was seen as betraying Chalcedon and a storm of protest followed. The West deserted him, including his own deacons in Rome and a council in North Africa led by Reparatus of Carthage excommunicated him.(23)

"While Pope Vigilius then caved into this opposition and withdrew Judicatum but secretly assured the Emperor by letter that he would do his utmost to procure the desired condemnation. Later however, Vigilius again changed his mind and refused outright condemnation of the three chapters. By this time Justinian was exasperated and summoned a council against Vigilius’ wishes which met in Constantinople on May 4th 553. While the council was in session Vigilius drew up a document Constitutum in which he reversed his judgment for the third time. It could be argued that Judicatum was under duress, however no such case can be made for Constitutum. In this document he condemns certain writings of Theodore but not his person and defends Theodoret and Ibas as being Orthodox. (24) He closes his encyclical with:

We ordain and decree that it be permitted to no one belonging to any ecclesiastical order or office to write or bring forward or compose or teach anything contrary to the contents of this Constitutum in regard to the Three Chapters or after this present definition to move any further question. And if anything has been done, said or written by anyone anywhere about the Three Chapters contrary to what we here assert and decree… this in all we refute by the authority of the Apostolic See in which by grace of God we preside.
“Pope Vigilius’ Constitutum was a solemn judgment on faith and dogma, containing 61 anathemas issued by the Bishop of Rome to the Emperor and a General Council of the Church for their guidance and instruction. The finality of the judgment is exemplified by the words “ordain and decree”. If this is not ex-cathedra, what possibly could be?” (25)

The Emperor refused to receive Constitutum returning it with the scornful answer “If you have condemned the three chapters I have no need of this new document for I have from you many others of the same content. If however you have in this new document departed from your earlier declarations, you have condemned yourself”. (~Mansi IX 349).

“However the 5th Ecumenical Council proceeded to pronounce its own judgment and condemned and anathematized the Three Chapters, declaring furthermore “We therefore anathematize… those who have written or do write in defence of them or who dare to say that they are correct and who have defended or attempt to defend their impiety” (~Sentence of the Synod, p311 Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers). Obviously, Vigilius fell under the anathema of the Council and the Council ordered the Pope’s name struck from the Diptychs of the Church “on account of the impiety which he defended” (ibid). The diptychs were the recognized symbol of unity consisting of lists each Patriarch kept of churches in communion.” (26)

After six months Pope Vigilius capitulated and reversed his judgment for a fourth time by issuing a second Constitutum dated 24th Feb 554 condemning and anathematizing the Three Chapters and blaming the devil for misleading him. French Catholic Bishop Bossuet observed: “These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decrees of sacred council prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and the letter Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical”. (27)

From the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): “If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate.”

Clearly the Pope’s position as first in the Church was conditional upon his orthodoxy. If the Pope gave an orthodox confession, he would be recognized as first. If he did not, then he would not. ***americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/chris/open/#five

 

[Dollinger]

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.

Laughable. The 2nd oecumenical council gathered by command of the bishop of Rome? The 4th also? The 5th? Trullo(6TH)? The 8th(879)?
What do we make of such a quote when it contradicts historical facts that even the Vatican agrees with?

 

[Dollinger]

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.])

Where can we find this prestly law please? And what do we do of the 2nd oecumenical council, presided by st Meletius not in communion with Rome, and without Rome participation? Or the 4th of Chalcedone that st Leo didnt wish to take place? Or the 5th? Again, what do we make of such a quote when it contradicts historical facts that even the Vatican agrees with?

Oh and about Julius:

***Eighty Eastern bishops, refused to accept that Eastern bishops should be judged or ordered by Rome. In addition, they were outraged to learn that bishops expelled from the Church by a lawful Eastern synod were reinstated by Rome, which acted alone and with no authority to make such a unilateral decision.

As a result of these conflicts, we read in the highly informative and very authoritative ancient documents Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (A, IV) the following condemnation of Rome’s self-imposed and fictional authority over the Church at large. The majority bishops, seeing Rome’s desire for hegemony, wrote: (We protest strongly)… “the novelty, which is abhorrent to the ancient custom of the Church, that that which has been decided by an Oriental Council of bishops should be revoked by a Western bishop*.”

At the conclusion of the documents Pope Julius is censured with an anathema.

You see there the proof that the notion of any supremacy of authority in Rome was NOT known to these bishops. They deem it a novelty. They say it is “abhorrent to the ancient custom of the Church.”

Sometimes Catholic apologists refer to canons of Sardica that allow a bishop to appeal to Rome. However, the bishop of Rome isn’t given the power to pass judgement, only to refer the matter to be reconsidered by a local synod of bishops. They did not permit the Roman pontiffs to intervene in any case on their own initiative. Further, they did not grant the pope authority over any bishops except those who resided in lands subject to his jurisdiction. At the time these ordinances were drawn up, the Roman Church held sway over Macedonia, Thessaly, Illyricum, Greece, the Peloponnesus, and Epirus, which later (732-33) passed over to the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople, who then took over the administration of appeals from these regions. The Patriarch Photius (recognized as a saint by Eastern Catholic churches) ca. 860 declared in a letter to Pope Nicholas I (858-67) that the Church of Constantinople was not bound by Sardican regulations. **americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/chris/open/#two

 

[Dollinger]

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.”

Nothing here close to Vatican I. But st Vincent even contradicts Vatican mind:

***In the 5th century, St. Vincent of Lerins saw that the people were faced with various errors and heresies of Donatus, Arius, Photinus, Pelagius and others, and gave them this good advice on how they could know with security the true Catholic Faith. Even if it is taught by distinguished men or Prelates, the bad doctrine should not be accepted by Catholics, who should cling to Tradition and what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all [quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est]. Actually, he stated: "I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a type of fixed and, as it were, general, guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy.

"And the answer that I receive is always to this effect: That if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a robust faith, we ought, with the Lord’s help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, first, that is, by the authority of God’s Law, then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

"Here, it may be, someone will ask: ‘Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church?’ The answer is that because of the profundity itself of Scripture, all men do not place the same interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.

"What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.

"But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.

"What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.

“But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation***.”

(The Vincentian Canon, in Commonitorium, chap IV, 434,
ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts)
traditioninaction.org/religious/n026rp_Lerins_PreserveFaith.htm

 

[anthony022071]

These examples bring many problems, in fact.

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

You’re not reading correctly. Pope Zozimus inquired into whether Pelagius really deserved to be condemned for false teaching,not about whether Pelagianism was really a false teaching.

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?

It shows that the Synod of Carthage didn’t rejected it and that they were out of communion with the Catholic Church. They were schismatic. To use this as evidence against the doctrine of universal jurisdiction is like using the separation of the Church of England in the 1500’s from the authority of the pope as evidence. The fact that people assert independence from Rome is not proof that the doctrine is invalid.

 

[Dollinger]

It shows that the Synod of Carthage didn’t rejected it and that they were out of communion with the Catholic Church. They were schismatic. To use this as evidence against the doctrine of universal jurisdiction is like using the separation of the Church of England in the 1500’s from the authority of the pope as evidence. The fact that people assert independence from Rome is not proof that the doctrine is invalid.

They were not out of the Catholic Church, they remained in communion with other sees.To be out of communion from Rome does not make one a schismatic. You would have to prove it does.

In fact, the synod of Carthage was presided by st Aurelius:

***In 416 he condemned them both, in a synod of sixty-eight bishops of the Proconsulate, and induced Innocent I to brand their two principal errors by defining the necessity of grace and of infant baptism. When Pope Zosimus allowed himself to be deceived by Pelagius’s lying professions, he held (417) a plenary council of his Africa brethren, and in their names warned the Pontiff who in turn (418) condemned the heresiarchs. **Aurelius is mentioned in the African martyrology on 20 July. *newadvent.org/cathen/02108d.htm

There was no schism over this synod and its canons, so you’re wrong.

 

[Chatter163]

Four-year old thread reopened.

 

[anthony022071]

They were not out of the Catholic Church, they remained in communion with other sees. To be out of communion from Rome does not make one a schismatic. You would have to prove it does.

Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 175-189 A.D.):
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [propter potentiorem principalitatem] – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.”
(Adversus Haereses 3:3:2)

Cyprian of Carthage (ca. 252 A.D.), writing to Pope Stephen in Rome:
“They [those in favor or re-baptizing lapsed Christians] dare to sail even to the chair of Peter and carry letters from schismatics and seculars to the principal Church, the source of sacerdotal unity.”
(Epistula 55:14)

Optatus (ca. 367 A.D.):
“In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas “Rock”] — of all the Apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner… Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.”
(The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2)

Pope Leo the Great:
The Lord . . . wanted His gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery . . . The Apostolic See . . . has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops . . . And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by longstanding custom.
(Letter to the Bishops of Vienne, July, 445 A.D.

Signatories of the “Formula of Hormisdas” (519 A.D.) to restore union after the Acacian Schism (484 A.D.):
“[We agree that] in the Apostolic See the Catholic Religion is always kept immaculate. . . . We receive and approve all the letters of the blessed Pope Leo . . . and, as we have said, we follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. Therefore, I hope that I may deserve to be with you [Pope Hormisdas] in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See, in which Communion is the whole, real and perfect solidity of the Christian Religion. And I promise that in the future I will not say in the holy Mysteries the names of those who are banished from the Communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who do not agree with the Apostolic See.”

Patriarch Mennas (ca. 536-552 A.D.; d. 552 A.D.), commemorated in the West on August 25, in his own sentence against Anthimus at a council in Constantinople (ca. 536 A.D.):
“Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic… we follow and obey the apostolic throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.”