Papal prerogatives

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry;2770328:

Context, context, context.

More like “deny,deny,deny”.

Was this the same Leo who got a decree from the Emperor Valtentian confirming Rome position on the basis of St. Peter’s primacy (and the Emperor’s credentials?).

The popes never based their ecclesiastical primacy upon secular power.

Then why did he request the decree? Also see your account below of the calling of the Council of Chalcedon.

And the Church ignored his protest of canon 28.

Canon 28 was struck from council records after the pope rejected it,and for six centuries it was not regarded by the Eastern churches or Eastern historians as part of the council.

Six centuries? See below.

In the end a council was convened no matter St. Flavian’s opinion you quote.

It was Pope Leo who got the Emporers to call the Council of Chalcedon,after having been appealed to by Flavian and other bishops. And the Council of Chalcedom recognized Pope Leo as presiding over the council through his legates.

Oh, did they? Who wrote this?

The Council of Constantinople consisted mainly of local bishops. There was no participation from Western bishops. The presence of a few papal legates did not make the council ecumenical. Legates do not participate in a council the way that bishops do.

So I take it bishops don’t preside at Councils, as someone : whistle : said that they don’t participate in a council the way that bishops do, so if Chalcedon recognized them as presiding, well…

Rome, you claim, denied Constantinople’s second place, here affirmed. Rome also was otherwise ignored.

It was only the clergy of Constantinople that affirmed,against tradition,Constantinople’s second place. And they certainly did not ignore the pope – they begged the pope to agree with Canon 28.

And so he did:

The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the bishop of the royal city in all things the equal of the pope. The purely human reason of Rome’s ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L., LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174) acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council (op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, II, 25-27). The Roman correctores of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: “canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit.”
newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

And so it now stands, as Rome has spoken :bowdown2:

 

[Aramis]

Well, to be honest I still think it’s undeniable that the bishop’s ordinary jurisdiction derives directly from the Pope – regardless of the precise translation in question.

Consider the following: (a) no bishop can be licitly ordained without papal mandate (in fact, the Pope by Divine Law has reserved for himself the right to ultimately choose and approve which bishops are to be ordained); (b) no bishop can lawfully exercise the full power of teaching, governing and sanctifying without the Pope’s (at least tacit) consent; and (c) a bishop’s ordinary jurisdiction is limited to his diocese where he is appointed by the Pope.

a) except within patriarchal and major archiepiscopal churches. See CCEO Canon 86 and 152
c) again except within other Sui Iuris churches with major archiepiscopal, or patriarchal churches. See CCEO canons 85, 85, 152.

Note that the pope does not appoint the bishops nor metropolitans suffragan to the Major Archbishops or Patriarchs.

Metropolitan Churches Sui Iuris provide Rome a list of 3 candidates for a vacancy, and the pope picks from these. (Canon 168)

b) except for suffragans of Sui Juris Major Archiepiscopal and Patriarchal Churches, who are enthroned and ordained by their Patriarch or Major Archbishop.

 

[tdgesq]

And so he did:

No he did not.

The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. Baronius wrongly maintained the non-authenticity of this canon, while some medieval Greeks maintained (an equally erroneous thesis) that it declared the bishop of the royal city in all things the equal of the pope. The purely human reason of Rome’s ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L., LIV, 1003, 1005) declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order. At the Eighth General Council in 869 the Roman legates (Mansi, XVI, 174) acknowledged Constantinople as second in patriarchal rank. In 1215, at the Fourth Lateran Council (op. cit., XXII, 991), this was formally admitted for the new Latin patriarch, and in 1439, at the Council of Florence, for the Greek patriarch (Hefele-Leclercq, Hist. des Conciles, II, 25-27). The Roman correctores of Gratian (1582), at dist. xxii, c. 3, insert the words: “canon hic ex iis est quos apostolica Romana sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recipit.”
newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

And so it now stands, as Rome has spoken :bowdown2:

I added the emphasis. Rome grudgingly allowed Constantinople second place purely in terms of the practicalities of internal Church governance, not in terms of spiritual authority over the entire Church. That is why canon 28 of Chalcedon was rejected. It did not acknowledge primacy based upon the succession of St. Peter, but on a purely human standard.

I asked the Orthodox here in an earlier thread to defend the primacy of honor of the Bishop of Rome from Scripture or the ECFs. It was widely acknowledged that there was no support from Scripture. The only patristic evidence was given by you, and even then none of the ECF’s that directly or even indirectly reference the Bishop of Rome. Apparently all those references are yet to be interpreted. And none of them were interpreted by the Orthodox here to refer to primacy of honor. You had your chance. Perhaps now they should all be brought forth to figure out what they do mean since they don’t refer to primacy of honor.

As for the Constantinople IV, a strange thing that your patriarchs were there and yet it isn’t one of your ecumenical councils. Maybe this is one of the ancient prerogatives of the patriarchs that wasn’t mentioned in the other thread - to attend a council and then reject it later on if they change their minds, or their minds are changed for them as the evidence suggests.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No he did not.

Such as happens when you try to squeeze apple juice out of oranges, ram square pegs in round holes, and Church history into Latin ecclesiology.

I added the emphasis. Rome grudgingly allowed Constantinople second place purely in terms of the practicalities of internal Church governance, not in terms of spiritual authority over the entire Church. That is why canon 28 of Chalcedon was rejected. It did not acknowledge primacy based upon the succession of St. Peter, but on a purely human standard.

That’s all the canons claimed. The issue of spiritual authority over the entire Church is projection on your part. It’s neither our, nor the Fathers fault that you can think of Church governance only in terms of V I papacy.

I asked the Orthodox here in an earlier thread to defend the primacy of honor of the Bishop of Rome from Scripture or the ECFs. It was widely acknowledged that there was no support from Scripture. The only patristic evidence was given by you, and even then none of the ECF’s that directly or even indirectly reference the Bishop of Rome. Apparently all those references are yet to be interpreted. And none of them were interpreted by the Orthodox here to refer to primacy of honor. You had your chance. Perhaps now they should all be brought forth to figure out what they do mean since they don’t refer to primacy of honor.

Yes, I remember the thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=183924

I remember repeating posting such as the following.

I am still not sure what are we supposed to defend:

1. That Rome had a primacy of honor.

OR

1. That this primacy was not the supremacy of Rome.

If 1, canon 28 of Chalcedon which is based on canon 3 on Constantinople I.

If 2, that canon 3 of Constantinople I was followed (at Ephesus, Nestorius was a patriarch) although Rome didn’t accept Constantinople’s 2d place until centuries later in 869 at the anti-Photian council.

I also recall you being repeatedly told there that, like papal primacy, there is no scriptural basis for it (for instance scripture not stating Peter was ever in Rome, as opposed to Antioch). It is the creation of the Church and her canons, which is fine with us, but you have problems with this fact.

As for the Constantinople IV, a strange thing that your patriarchs were there and yet it isn’t one of your ecumenical councils. Maybe this is one of the ancient prerogatives of the patriarchs that wasn’t mentioned in the other thread - to attend a council and then reject it later on if they change their minds, or their minds are changed for them as the evidence suggests.

Strange thing that your patriarch wasn’t (of course now, he’s not a patriarch anymore), and yet it is one of your ecumenical councils. Of course he attended none of the Seven, even though Vigilius had been brought to Constantinople for the Fifth, was in town, and had to be brought kicking and screaming to its decision.

Of course, for the council in question you had accepted the C IV of 879, which cancelled that of 869. Later Rome removed it from the list (maybe by one of his ancient prerogatives to accept a council and then reject it later on if he changes his mind, also exercised elsewhere,e.g. the Council of Siena). One reason because of the condemnation of the filioque (Rome at 879 still had Pope Leo’s tablet with the unadulterated Creed on St. Peter’s doors), which made it a problem after the 11th century.

You have revealed a problem: all Orthodox accept the Council of 879, yet it has not won universal acceptance as an Ecumenical Council. But that’s not our problem.

 

[tdgesq]

That’s all the canons claimed.

I agree with you.

Yes, I remember the thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=183924

I remember repeating posting such as the following.

I acknowledged your contribution.

I also recall you being repeatedly told there that, like papal primacy, there is no scriptural basis for it (for instance scripture not stating Peter was ever in Rome, as opposed to Antioch). It is the creation of the Church and her canons, which is fine with us, but you have problems with this fact.

That is not an accurate reflection of my thoughts on the matter nor of what I posted in the other thread. I specifically stated that I believe the Church has the authority to self-govern through the councils in this way. I also agree with you that there isn’t anything in Scripture that refers to the specifics of self-governance, except that the Church has the authority to set up it’s own governing structure.

But look at what this means for you: Matthew 16 doesn’t refer to primacy of honor. None of the statements of the ECF’s that refer to the See of Rome refer to primacy of honor. Then what do they mean? Should have taken your shot while you had the chance.

Strange thing that your patriarch wasn’t (of course now, he’s not a patriarch anymore), and yet it is one of your ecumenical councils. Of course he attended none of the Seven, even though Vigilius had been brought to Constantinople for the Fifth, was in town, and had to be brought kicking and screaming to its decision.

I don’t know that the Bishop of Rome never attended any of the first seven. I do know that his legates did attend at least some of those councils. Not strange at all either way in Catholic ecclesiology. Rome did approve those councils, at least those parts that it found to reflect the faith. My Church maintains that is the papal prerogative. So why should it appear strange to us?

On the other hand, can you explain how it is that at Constantinople IV the patriarchs and their delegates showed up but later rejected what was decided? I didn’t realize they had that prerogative. Perhaps because nobody mentioned it in the previous thread.

Of course, for the council in question you had accepted the C IV of 879, which cancelled that of 869. Later Rome removed it from the list (maybe by one of his ancient prerogatives to accept a council and then reject it later on if he changes his mind, also exercised elsewhere,e.g. the Council of Siena). One reason because of the condemnation of the filioque (Rome at 879 still had Pope Leo’s tablet with the unadulterated Creed on St. Peter’s doors), which made it a problem after the 11th century.

Even if I were to grant your version of history here, it doesn’t help you explain why 869 wasn’t ecumenical. And if Rome accepted your robber council of 879, why don’t the Orthodox hold it as ecumenical? Surely not because schismatic Rome sometime later decided it wasn’t.

As for Rome later accepting 879; I believe you know that there is dispute over this. If you’ve got a genuine documented historical account that the Pope accepted 879, I’d be glad to look at it.

You have revealed a problem: all Orthodox accept the Council of 879, yet it has not won universal acceptance as an Ecumenical Council. But that’s not our problem.

It’s not a problem that you can’t seem to declare it ecumenical even though you claim Rome accepted it. It’s not a problem that you now blame Rome for it’s non-ecumenical status even though you’ve never had a problem in the past ignoring schismatic Churches (the Oriental Orthodox) when it comes to whether a council is ecumenical or not. It’s not a problem that you can’t explain what 869 lacked in terms of a valid council that 879 somehow had. I guess if you just ignore the problems then they go away.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Looking around about stuff on the Benedict telling the Ukrainian bishops both Latin and uniate that they are one church, I came across something that led to a wikipedia article, including the following.

Excommunication
In 2003 Husar excommunicated SSJK superior Fr Kovpak from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church; Kovpak however appealed this punishment at the papal Sacra Rota Romana in Vatican City. The excommunication was thereafter declared null and void by the Holy See; nevertheless the excommunication process was restarted by Cardinal Husar.“The excommunication pronounced against Father Vasyl was declared null for the reasons of a lack of canonical form, but the process has been restarted. The Cardinal of Kiev had already threatened him with all sorts of punishments if the ordinations were to take place, and the new bishop of Lviv has openly declared that his main task for this coming year will be to eradicate the ‘Lefebvrists’ from his territory.”[3]

Liturgy
The SSJK rejects the de-Latinization reforms presently prevailing in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which is in full communion with Rome. These reforms start with the 1964 Vatican II decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum and several subsequent implementing documents. The SSJK for instance opposes the removal of the stations of the cross, the rosary and the monstrance from the liturgy and parishes of that Church. Critics claim that the SSJK’s liturgical practice favours severely abbreviated services and favours imported Roman devotions over the traditional and authentic practices and devotions of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Proponents counter that these symbols and rituals, borrowed from their Roman Catholic Polish neighbors have been practiced by Ukrainian Greek Catholics for centuries now, and to deny them is to deprive themselves of a part of their sacred heritage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Society_of_Saint_Josaphat

I can’t vouch for the above information, but reversing the excommunication would be interesting in this forum if true.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mikee,

Mikee:

Consider the following: (a) no bishop can be licitly ordained without papal mandate (in fact, the Pope by Divine Law has reserved for himself the right to ultimately choose and approve which bishops are to be ordained;

Well, I have no problem with this. I have three comments:

1. A similar circumstance exists in my Coptic Orthodox Tradition, except it’s kind of the other way around. In the CC, AFTER all the deliberations and nominations, the Pope can choose to approve which bishops are to be ordained; in the COC, a congregation presents their candidate to the Pope, and it is up to the Pope to submit him to the Synod for approval. I wonder what it’s like in other Oriental Churches?
2. In a similar manner, the ecumenical Councils granted Patriarchs and Metropolitans comparable prerogatives – their confirmation of a bishop was absolutely required for a bishop to validly become a bishop. Thus, as I have stated, I have no problem with this papal prerogative at all. It is perfectly amenable to the ecclesiology of the Church in the first millenium. Perhaps non-Catholic apostolic Christians (particularly EO) are not too cognizant of the ancient canons, if they really think this monarchical manner of episcopal election is so shocking. If they do not wish to follow the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, that is fine, but they have no warrant to criticize other apostolic Christians for wanting to maintain the Tradition of the Church.
3. I believe this circumstance only occurs for non-patriarchal Catholic Churches. I have no problem with that. If non-patriarchal Churches want internal control of episcopal election, they should petition for patriarchal status.

BTW, can you cite where this power of the Pope originates from “divine law?”

quote= no bishop can lawfully exercise the full power of teaching, governing and sanctifying without the Pope’s (at least tacit) consent;
[/quote]

Here we can have a measure of agreement. The EXERCISE of the power is different from the ATTAINMENT of the power. I will explain more below in the section on Mystici Corp.

and (c) a bishop’s ordinary jurisdiction is limited to his diocese where he is appointed by the Pope.

No problem here. This is the canonical reality established by the Ecumenical Councils – a bishop is limited to his OWN jurisdiction. Besides, I believe this also only occurs in non-patriarchal Churches.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

And according to that excerpt from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Cardinal Ottaviani himself affirmed that this more common opinion must now be accepted as certain in virtue of Pius XII’s words in Mystici Corporis Christi – and I think he would know

1. Who does this guy think he is?!!! Just kidding! With all due respect to Cardinal Ottaviani (bless his soul), he expressed these opinions before Vatican II. The article from the AER is also before Vatican II. I believe Vatican II, the thankful completion of Vatican I, corrected these excessive claims.
2. Mystici Corporis Christi was not an ex cathedra pronouncement.
3. We now come upon the statement of Vatican II on the issue:

The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them… by the authority and sacred power which indeed they exercise exclusively for the spiritual development of their flock…This power, which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church and can be confined within certain limits should the usefulness of the Church and the faithful require it. In virtue of this power bishops have a sacred right and a duty before the Lord of legislating for and of passing judgment on their subjects, as well as of regulating everything that concerns the good order of divine worship and of the apostolate. The pastoral charge, that is, the permanent and daily care of their sheep, is entrusted to them fully; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff; for they exercise the power which they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern. Consequently, their authority, far from being damaged by the supreme and universal power, is much rather defended, upheld, and strengthened by it, since the Holy Spirit preserves unfailingly that form of government which was set up by Christ the Lord in his Church.

I pray my citation of Vatican II has settled this issue. However, I feel I need to clarify two other points. First, notice that the exercise can only be confined or limited if the usefulness of the Church and the faithful require it. This does NOT translate to a laissez-faire authority for the Pope. Second, note that the Vatican II decree states that the exercise is controlled by “the supreme authority of the Church.” This supreme authority, as the Canons define, is not the Pope ALONE, but the Pope in union with the College of bishops. I can think of the example of indulgences. Because of abuses in the matter of indulgences, the Pope IN COUNCIL, restricted the ability of bishops to grant plenary indulgences, and gave permission to grant only partial indulgences. Here, as reflects the proper order of the Church, the episcopal exercise was controlled FOR A GOOD REASON, and it was done COLLEGIALLY.

You must think I’m the most thick-headed Oriental! Forgive me, but I just want to explore and present every possible avenue because my belief is part of the reason I translated into the Catholic Church. I didn’t go looking for it – it is what I found, despite accusations to the contrary, without any agenda on my mind, while I was still an Oriental Orthodox outside the Catholic communion. Regardless of what has occurred in the post-Schism past, what I have found in this most glorious Church is the ideal state of the Church as exemplified in the first millennium, an ideal that has been extant for almost two centuries. I believe it can only get better for Eastern and Oriental Catholics.

I look forward to your responses. Do not be afraid that my faith might be shaken if you prove me wrong. So give it your best shot. Our faith always has to go through fire (shades of Purgatory! Hahahaha!) to be molded and strengthened.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. BTW, if you don’t mind my asking, are YOU satisfied with the ecclesiological state of the Catholic Church today? Do you think the model as I understand it still needs to be realized? Do you accept the model as I understand it?

 

[anthony022071]

Then why did he request the decree?

I don’t know what decree you’re talking about. In any case,such a decree would have been a matter of an emporer enforcing order and obedience in the Eastern churches in his empire by making sure that they were in communion with Rome. Even the emporers recognized the traditional,ecclesiastical primacy of the Roman church. But the basis of Rome’s ecclesiastical primacy is something separate,a matter of sacred tradition,and distinguished from the secular power of the state. Peter was not a friend of the Roman state,he was killed by it. The church of Rome was largely underground and illegal and persecuted until the Edict of Toleration of 311. Constantinople,on the other hand,was built up as a Christian city by a secular power from the beginning. Therein lies the difference between the Byzantine mindset and the Roman mindset. With the Byzantines,ecclesiastical authority was conflated with secular power,whereas the Roman church made a distinction between the two,because there is a danger when the kingdom of the faithful identifies itself too closely with a worldly kingdom or culture. The church is in many respects counter-cultural. It’s like the difference between norms and meta-norms. Augustine in The City of God elaborated upon the distinction between a state cult and the pilgrim colony on earth which has its foundation in God and his angels.

Also see your account below of the calling of the Council of Chalcedon.

What about it?

Six centuries? See below.

Yes,six centuries.

< So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.” This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon. >

bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I agree with you.

I acknowledged your contribution.

That is not an accurate reflection of my thoughts on the matter nor of what I posted in the other thread. I specifically stated that I believe the Church has the authority to self-govern through the councils in this way. I also agree with you that there isn’t anything in Scripture that refers to the specifics of self-governance, except that the Church has the authority to set up it’s own governing structure.

I don’t recall you expressing yourself so, but I apologize if I misrepresented your position, in particular as we can agree with the above. Below, well…

But look at what this means for you: Matthew 16 doesn’t refer to primacy of honor. None of the statements of the ECF’s that refer to the See of Rome refer to primacy of honor. Then what do they mean? Should have taken your shot while you had the chance.

The other thread it was never quite so clear what we were supposed to defend. This post is somewhat clearer.

Let’s say that it means primacy or rather your supremacy. I’ve seen Pope St. Gregory’s quote (after editing) used to support this, that Rome, Alexandria (through St. Mark, St. Peter’s disciple) and Antioch (through St. Peter established the see before Rome) are one See. The problem: it accepts Alexandria in second place, although it’s a Petrine only indirectly, and over St. Peter’s original see Antioch. It also ignores that St. Peter was in Jerusalem (something you can’t develop from the NT for Rome): might be a problem explaining how he yielded the Throne to St. James. Also, if Constantinople, through St. Andrew St. Peter’s brother, is indirect, it is no more than Alexandria: at least it had a disciple and Apostle in close association with St. Peter.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t know that the Bishop of Rome never attended any of the first seven. I do know that his legates did attend at least some of those councils. Not strange at all either way in Catholic ecclesiology. Rome did approve those councils, at least those parts that it found to reflect the faith. My Church maintains that is the papal prerogative. So why should it appear strange to us?

I was pointing out that Anthony seems confused on this: at once he dismisses the claim that Rome approved Constantinople I because Rome’s legates were there, he says legates don’t count. Then he says that Rome presided over Chalcedon because Rome’s legates were there, and they evidently count. Which is it?

On the other hand, can you explain how it is that at Constantinople IV the patriarchs and their delegates showed up but later rejected what was decided? I didn’t realize they had that prerogative. Perhaps because nobody mentioned it in the previous thread.

Including you (ex)patriarch? That’s been mentioned a couple times.

Even if I were to grant your version of history here, it doesn’t help you explain why 869 wasn’t ecumenical. And if Rome accepted your robber council of 879, why don’t the Orthodox hold it as ecumenical? Surely not because schismatic Rome sometime later decided it wasn’t.

Because, as much as it pains you, Rome is irrelevant. Whether it accepts or rejects doesn’t mean anything to us on this matter, except to point out Rome’s inconsistency when it claims infallibility, and its claims on the filioque. Constantinople V, held long after and never accepted by Rome is in the same boat as C IV

As for Rome later accepting 879; I believe you know that there is dispute over this. If you’ve got a genuine documented historical account that the Pope accepted 879, I’d be glad to look at it.

The claim, oft repeated, that St. Photios died in communion with Rome. If 879 is rejected, a whole lot of other historical questions come into play.

It’s not a problem that you can’t seem to declare it ecumenical even though you claim Rome accepted it. It’s not a problem that you now blame Rome for it’s non-ecumenical status even though you’ve never had a problem in the past ignoring schismatic Churches (the Oriental Orthodox) when it comes to whether a council is ecumenical or not. It’s not a problem that you can’t explain what 869 lacked in terms of a valid council that 879 somehow had. I guess if you just ignore the problems then they go away.

Again, Rome is quite irrelevent. That Rome accepted it doesn’t make it ecumenical. Rome wasn’t in schism in 879 nor after for some time, so the comparison with the OO doesn’t apply. Btw like the Assumption, we don’t indulge in unnecessary dogmatizing: that is the reason why it wasn’t declared ecumenical. Not necessary for an unamious council, your pope’s belated pull out a few ceturies later, post-schism, changed the unanimity but not its status.

The problem, which originally brought up Constantinople IV (pseudo and real), is the acceptance of Rome of New Rome’s second place (a thing I have heard complained about by Ukrainians in Rome) while it is continuingly profered as proof of papal primacy that Rome voided C I canon 3 and Chaldecon 28: if she did, the rest of the Church ignored her.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello

Hello

Then why did he request the decree?

I don’t know what decree you’re talking about. In any case,such a decree would have been a matter of an emporer enforcing order and obedience in the Eastern churches in his empire by making sure that they were in communion with Rome. Even the emporers recognized the traditional,ecclesiastical primacy of the Roman church. But the basis of Rome’s ecclesiastical primacy is something separate,a matter of sacred tradition,and distinguished from the secular power of the state. Peter was not a friend of the Roman state,he was killed by it. The church of Rome was largely underground and illegal and persecuted until the Edict of Toleration of 311. Constantinople,on the other hand,was built up as a Christian city by a secular power from the beginning. Therein lies the difference between the Byzantine mindset and the Roman mindset. With the Byzantines,ecclesiastical authority was conflated with secular power,whereas the Roman church made a distinction between the two,because there is a danger when the kingdom of the faithful identifies itself too closely with a worldly kingdom or culture. The church is in many respects counter-cultural. It’s like the difference between norms and meta-norms. Augustine in The City of God elaborated upon the distinction between a state cult and the pilgrim colony on earth which has its foundation in God and his angels.

And the title supreme pontiff comes from where? (hint: Romulus).

Again, what was St. Peter doing in Rome? Why is the Petrine See of Antioch behind the indirect see of Alexandria?

Also see your account below of the calling of the Council of Chalcedon.

What about it?

I was refering to the confusion on whether legates count or not.

Six centuries? See below.

Yes,six centuries.

< So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s “line item veto.” This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon. >

bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm

And Constantinople acted as second how?

Rome, as posted elsewhere, recognized this at the Ignatian council, which is just over 400 years.

Also posted is the canon of Chalcedon requiring trial in Constantinople of bishops. Why there? And why without recorded objection?

 

[fwon2638]

And the title supreme pontiff comes from where? (hint: Romulus).

bringyou.to/apologetics/a104.htm

Regards,

Francis

 

[tdgesq]

I was pointing out that Anthony seems confused on this: at once he dismisses the claim that Rome approved Constantinople I because Rome’s legates were there, he says legates don’t count. Then he says that Rome presided over Chalcedon because Rome’s legates were there, and they evidently count. Which is it?

I didn’t read what the other poster had to say about it. But to answer the question, the delegates are there to provide representation for Rome. But that doesn’t mean they can bind the Bishop of Rome to any given decision. Perhaps he meant who had the right to preside over Chalcedon, and their is evidence even in that council that it was recognized he did. There is also evidence that the Eastern Church did not accept canon 28 precisely for that reason.

Including you (ex)patriarch? That’s been mentioned a couple times.

I don’t think you have the guns from a historical standpoint to demonstrate that the Pope accepted the council of 879. I know that Warren Carroll disagrees with you on this point. Give me the genuine documented historical account that a Pope accepted it.

Because, as much as it pains you, Rome is irrelevant. Whether it accepts or rejects doesn’t mean anything to us on this matter, except to point out Rome’s inconsistency when it claims infallibility, and its claims on the filioque. Constantinople V, held long after and never accepted by Rome is in the same boat as C IV

It doesn’t pain me that you believe Rome is irrelevant. Why? Because what you say isn’t borne out by history. Show me where the robber council of Constantinople IV was accepted by the Pope. Not even Schaff believes this, and he’s Protestant.

The claim, oft repeated, that St. Photios died in communion with Rome. If 879 is rejected, a whole lot of other historical questions come into play.

I don’t care what claims are oft repeated. Let’s see your case for the Roman Pontiff adopting the council of 879.

Again, Rome is quite irrelevent. That Rome accepted it doesn’t make it ecumenical.

Great. One objection down.

Rome wasn’t in schism in 879 nor after for some time, so the comparison with the OO doesn’t apply.

If Rome wasn’t in schism in 879, then what was lacking in that council that would make it ecumenical? You don’t have an answer. I’ve asked it now at least three different times in three different ways. If you can’t answer, just come out and say it.

Btw like the Assumption, we don’t indulge in unnecessary dogmatizing: that is the reason why it wasn’t declared ecumenical.

That is a lie. Your patriarchs did declare it ecumenical in their late encyclical to the Pope. Now you try to deny it just like the rest of the Orthodox who insist upon seven ecumenical councils. Troubling. And it’s a horrible mistake by you anyway. That council declared the filiquoe invalid. So it isn’t one of your dogmas? Great. Then stop telling Catholics they are wrong. Tell them that there is good reason to believe they are wrong instead.

Not necessary for an unamious council, your pope’s belated pull out a few ceturies later, post-schism, changed the unanimity but not its status.

Prove it to me historian.

The problem, which originally brought up Constantinople IV (pseudo and real), is the acceptance of Rome of New Rome’s second place (a thing I have heard complained about by Ukrainians in Rome) while it is continuingly profered as proof of papal primacy that Rome voided C I canon 3 and Chaldecon 28: if she did, the rest of the Church ignored her.

And wrong again. Evidence forthcoming.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Brother Marduk,

I do understand why it should be the way you believe, yet it has not been exercised in practice, nor is it supported by the CCOC. (The bolded text above is a newer edition to the argument, I do not recall having it in previous debate. Interesting, I was curious how you interpreted Vatican I into this. )

As for the historical precedents, I cite the history of the Maronite Church (still looking for that thread of mine ), the more recent example of the Maronite delegation to Rome to overturn the ban on married clergy the Pope enacted, and the subsequent decision of Rome which continues this tragic opposition to tradition. Apparently, that decision by the Pope supersedes the CCOC’s own mandate to return to married clergy as the CCOC came afterwards.

Brother, I would like to see your beliefs possible, but history and Canon says otherwise. My Latin brothers, what are your thoughts? It would seem to me that this particular belief would be, for lack of a better term, offensive to the stature and authority so vested by Latins in the Pope, though, no doubt those more ecumenical and accepting of EC’s will find it appropriate.

Much love, God Bless.

The Pope possesses full and immediate authority over the whole church although it might not be exercised in practice, it is still his right as the Successor of St. Peter and head of the Roman See…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Semper Fi,

The Pope possesses full and immediate authority over the whole church although it might not be exercised in practice, it is still his right as the Successor of St. Peter and head of the Roman See…

Just to be clear:

The Pope has no right to impose anything that will disturb the peace of the Churches, either collectively or singularly.

He has no right to take an orthodox Catholic bishop’s jurisdiction away from him.

He has no right to violate Sacred Tradition.

He has no right to refuse communion to a Catholic Christian not under mortal sin.

He has no right to give communion to a Catholic Christian who is under mortal sin.

He has no right to refuse confession to a Catholic Christian.

He has no right to violate or abrogate the universal canons of the Church (though he has a right to give dispensations from them in unique circumstances for a good reason and that do not violate Sacred Tradition). Of course, the supreme authority of the Church, the Sacred College in union with her head the Pope, has a right to abrogate a universal canon.

He has no right to dissolve a valid, sacramental marriage.

He has no right to ordain women.

He has no right to use Church funds for personal pleasure.

He has no right to ordain a heretic.

etc.

etc.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a104.htm

Regards,

Francis

Yes Bonocore came up on another thread on this issue, some timeline that gave credit to him made the ridiculous claim that Theodosios tried to make the EP head by giving him the title pontifex maximus, in competiton to Gratian giving it to the pope of Rome. No such thing ever happened.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

the supreme authority of the Church, the Sacred College in union with her head the Pope, has a right to abrogate a universal canon.

Although the Pope may choose to share power with the bishops, provided they agree with him, I think that Canon 333/3 makes it starkly clear who holds the supreme authority:

**There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff. **

 

[w_stewart]

And the title supreme pontiff comes from where? (hint: Romulus).

It does not matter who is the originator of the title itself. The power and authority of the Pope is not derived from the title, not even from the originator of the title.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

It does not matter who is the originator of the title itself. The power and authority of the Pope is not derived from the title, not even from the originator of the title.

According to the Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore when the title of Supreme Pontiff was conferred on the Pope by the Emperor Gratian it gave the Pope legal power and authority.

At least that is how I read Bonocore. He is not always clear in what he writes.

See
*bringyou.to/apologetics/a104.htm
*