F
ForeverAdam
Guest
I don’t respond to sarcasm?
- Status
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic. It’s not you but that other poster has been on here unwilling to have an educated discussion about anything, and thus I got angry. I’m sorry, if you would like to participate then fine. I have yet to see one Early Church Father, who states that Rome does not hold Primacy, all the Churches are equal?
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Alright, this conversation has just gone wayyyyyy too far for me to try to address what was written before. I’ll try to reset and we’ll go from there. Some of what I say will, thankfully, address some earlier points. If any of them are not adressed, please bring them up again in due course.
So far as I can tell, there are two major issues around which we are going. The first is the practice of the east: did those in the east act as though the pope had jurisdiction? The second is the precise nature of the progression of doctrine.
As to the first, it seems clear that the east did act as though the pope had juridiction over them. A few examples:
Pope Victor excommunicated Asiatic Churches over the dating of Easter. Now IsaAlmisry earlier claimed that Victor was ignored and rebuked. However, the evidence would seem to support the notion of papal jurisdiction. Eusebius writes:
For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man’." He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did…Thereupon 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. 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. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom.
Victor’s authority to in fact excommunicate these Churches is assumed here. The bishops beseech him to reconsider, and Irenaues tells him he ought not to cut off whole Churches. If he had no such authority, Irenaues would not speak as he did, but would tell him he had no such authority. Indeed, anyone familiar with Irenaeus’ writings will know that he is very quick to point out a lack of authority where none is present. As it is, Irenaeus told Victor that he “ought not” cut off whole Churches. One cannot be in a position to “ought” or “ought not” do a thing unless one has the ability to do that. It would be, for example, nonsensical to tell me that I ought not fly like a bird.
The Council of Sardica, in 343, established at least two canons giving jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome. Of particular note is Canon V: ‘Bishop Hosius said: ‘It has pleased us to add: If a bishop accused and deposed by the bishops of his district, in order to appeal about it takes refuge with the blessed Bishop of the Roman Church to submit the matter to his decision, let the latter, if it seem right to him, proceed to a new examination of the case, let him be worthy to write to the nearest bishops of his province to examine everything with care and exactitude and to decide according to the truth.'
That it was common practice to appeal to the Bishop of Rome is made plain here.
The practice can be seen with the case of Athanasius, who was able to be restored to his church by virtue of a letter from Pope Julius. Even the Arians accepted his authority in restoring Athanasius. Not only did Athanasius look to Rome for help, but so did Paul of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, and Lucius of Andrianople, among others. These men were all able to return to their churches thanks to the ruling of Julius. All throughout the East, then, the pope’s authority was accepted.
Sozomen, an Eastern Church historian who reports on this point, says that it was because “the oversight of everyone belongs to [Julius], through the merit of his See.” (Ecclesiastical History, 3, 8) Sozomen goes on to report that Pope Julius summoned the bishops who had deposed these men to meet him, and threatened to “bear with them no longer, unless they would cease to make innovations.” The authority that Julius commanded is evident. According to Sozomen, the bishops of Egypt even wrote back, denying his charges. Just as in the case of Victor, they behaved precisely as though Julius could do just what he threatened. Were this power truly beyond him, they would not have tried to defend themselves. They would have ignored him, or told him that he had no authority to do so. About this same time, Julius asserted that a canon prohibits anything contrary to the judgment of the bishop of Rome. In his own Ecclesiastical History, Socrates Scholasticus confirms that such a canon did indeed exist.
Pope Innocent I wrote to the Council of Carthage in 417, saying that "[The Fathers of the Church] did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See, so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the total authority of this See, and therefore other Churches…"
Here he asserted not only that distant provinces must have their teachings confirmed by the “total authority” of the Apostolic See, but even that the approval of that See would constitute the approval of the other Churches. The bishops at Carthage not only did not object, but St. Augustine said that Innocent “wrote back to us in the same way in which it is the lawful duty of the Apostolic See to write.”
Flavian, the archbishop of Constantinople who was declared a martyr by Chalcedon, wrote to Pope Leo seeking a judgment, and declared that his one letter would render the need for a Council 'superfluous."
So far as I can tell, there are two major issues around which we are going. The first is the practice of the east: did those in the east act as though the pope had jurisdiction? The second is the precise nature of the progression of doctrine.
As to the first, it seems clear that the east did act as though the pope had juridiction over them. A few examples:
Pope Victor excommunicated Asiatic Churches over the dating of Easter. Now IsaAlmisry earlier claimed that Victor was ignored and rebuked. However, the evidence would seem to support the notion of papal jurisdiction. Eusebius writes:
For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man’." He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did…Thereupon 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. 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. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom.
Victor’s authority to in fact excommunicate these Churches is assumed here. The bishops beseech him to reconsider, and Irenaues tells him he ought not to cut off whole Churches. If he had no such authority, Irenaues would not speak as he did, but would tell him he had no such authority. Indeed, anyone familiar with Irenaeus’ writings will know that he is very quick to point out a lack of authority where none is present. As it is, Irenaeus told Victor that he “ought not” cut off whole Churches. One cannot be in a position to “ought” or “ought not” do a thing unless one has the ability to do that. It would be, for example, nonsensical to tell me that I ought not fly like a bird.
The Council of Sardica, in 343, established at least two canons giving jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome. Of particular note is Canon V: ‘Bishop Hosius said: ‘It has pleased us to add: If a bishop accused and deposed by the bishops of his district, in order to appeal about it takes refuge with the blessed Bishop of the Roman Church to submit the matter to his decision, let the latter, if it seem right to him, proceed to a new examination of the case, let him be worthy to write to the nearest bishops of his province to examine everything with care and exactitude and to decide according to the truth.'
That it was common practice to appeal to the Bishop of Rome is made plain here.
The practice can be seen with the case of Athanasius, who was able to be restored to his church by virtue of a letter from Pope Julius. Even the Arians accepted his authority in restoring Athanasius. Not only did Athanasius look to Rome for help, but so did Paul of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, and Lucius of Andrianople, among others. These men were all able to return to their churches thanks to the ruling of Julius. All throughout the East, then, the pope’s authority was accepted.
Sozomen, an Eastern Church historian who reports on this point, says that it was because “the oversight of everyone belongs to [Julius], through the merit of his See.” (Ecclesiastical History, 3, 8) Sozomen goes on to report that Pope Julius summoned the bishops who had deposed these men to meet him, and threatened to “bear with them no longer, unless they would cease to make innovations.” The authority that Julius commanded is evident. According to Sozomen, the bishops of Egypt even wrote back, denying his charges. Just as in the case of Victor, they behaved precisely as though Julius could do just what he threatened. Were this power truly beyond him, they would not have tried to defend themselves. They would have ignored him, or told him that he had no authority to do so. About this same time, Julius asserted that a canon prohibits anything contrary to the judgment of the bishop of Rome. In his own Ecclesiastical History, Socrates Scholasticus confirms that such a canon did indeed exist.
Pope Innocent I wrote to the Council of Carthage in 417, saying that "[The Fathers of the Church] did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See, so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the total authority of this See, and therefore other Churches…"
Here he asserted not only that distant provinces must have their teachings confirmed by the “total authority” of the Apostolic See, but even that the approval of that See would constitute the approval of the other Churches. The bishops at Carthage not only did not object, but St. Augustine said that Innocent “wrote back to us in the same way in which it is the lawful duty of the Apostolic See to write.”
Flavian, the archbishop of Constantinople who was declared a martyr by Chalcedon, wrote to Pope Leo seeking a judgment, and declared that his one letter would render the need for a Council 'superfluous."
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
As regards the progression of doctrine, I really don’t think that there is that great a difference between what Adam posted and the Catholic position. Doctrine must not change as it goes forward. That such a thing could happen was even condemned by Pope Pius X when he condemned the modernist notion of the evolution of doctrine.
I’ll quote Dave Armstrong, who has done a great deal of work on the subject:
Let’s start from there.
I’ll quote Dave Armstrong, who has done a great deal of work on the subject:
Thus, for instance, the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Both Catholics and Orthodox recognize his primacy. What precise sort of primacy is the real question. I don’t think that one can say that the Church’s current teaching on the papacy really is any different doctrine from this. It is a better understood doctrine, one which has been expounded upon moreso, just as the doctrine of the Incarnation was better understood and expounded upon by Chalcedon. The doctrine itself - that the Word became flesh in the person of Christ, true God and true man - did not change. Yet I do not believe it is arguable that many of the particular Christological teachings presented by Chalcedon could not be found explicitly in at least the first century of the Church.
Let’s start from there.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
You know what happens when you assUme.
You left out the “of honor” part.
The Council of Chalcedon
“Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.”(canon 28 [A.D. 450]).
There you go, the Constantinoplitan Church has equality to Rome.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
You assUme the church at Rome is the original Church.
Our Church originated in Jerusalem, and the successor of St. James, the Brother of God, still preaches Orthodoxy there, and is remembered in the diptychs.
We obey God, rather than men. So when the pope of Rome inserted the filioque, he was stricken from the diptychs, and when he sent his envoy to excommunicate us post mortem, we excommunicated said envoy for failing to follow the Fathers.
Compare the two the century before and after 1054, and you will see, or should, who changed and fell. Hint: the filioque wasn’t inserted at Rome until 1014, at imperial command.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
You do know what anathema means?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
…24 “So they will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, offspring and issue, all the least of vessels, from bowls to all the jars. 25 “In that day,” declares the LORD of hosts, “the peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.”
Is verse 25 refering to 1054? 1870?
Again, this intepretation does not even predate the Reformation: Douay Rheims knows nothing of it (it says Eliakim is a figure of Christ, and mentions nothing of the papacy), a translation made specifically to enforce Vatican claims.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Actually, we confess our Faith in “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” every Sunday in the unadulterated Creed.
Btw, the Fathers who wrote those words in 381 were “in schism” from Rome at the time, something the Catholic Answers tract on us admits:
During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor. The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.
catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp
cherrypicking would say the same of St. James and St. John as well.
Which the Fathers made New Rome the equal to.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Uh, the papacy for one.
P
prodromos
Guest
It is worth noting that John Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome either until he was made bishop of Constantinople. He was baptised and ordained a Deacon by Meletius, and later ordained a priest by Flavian, neither of whom were in communion with Rome, so for 25-30 years Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome and did not once count it as a hindrance. He was then in communion with Rome only 9 years before his death in exile.
John
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
No, they rebuked him for presuming it, sharply.
…bringing schism between Rome and the rest of the Church.
Yes, he quickly points out the authority of the Churches (plural).
Yes, and Pilate told the Lord of Life that he had the authority to decide whether He lived or died.
Irenaeus writes properly, as the suffragan of Rome that he was.
As an aside Victor had conections with the imperial court, something he used to the Church’s advantage (remember the reasoning of canons 3 of Constantinople I and Chalcedon c. 28), and was the one to change the language from Greek to Latin in the Church at Rome.
cont…
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Yes, plain as Chalcedon canon IX***‘If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.’***
Ah, but Patriarch St. Meletius, who opened and presided over the Second Ecumenical Council was :deposed" by Rome and recognized another (whose line died out, and is not even claimed by any of Rome’s four patriarchs of Antioch), nor was Rome’s non-recognition of St. Gregory who presided over the Council after Meletius’ repose, nor the non-recognition of St. Nectarius who succeeded to him. Nor, unfortunately, was Rome’s authority of any help to St. Nectarius’ successor, St. John Chrysostom, deposed at the instigation of Pope Theophilos and Pope St.Cyril of Alexandria.
Btw, the letter of Julius was written after the Emperor Constantius’ decrees of amnesty and restoration to Athanasius.
Yet neither he, nor you, can produce said canon.
The Council of Constantinople was quite finished without any (name removed by moderator)ut from the Pope or even anyone from his patriarchate. Btw, the oft repeated claim that Constantinople I was not Ecumenical until Chalcedon is not only wrong, but here irrelevant, as Rome doesn’t bring up any issue, say, of canon 3, until AFTER Chalcedon.
Again, Carthage, a suffragan of Rome, would be a bad example. Unless you want to explain how St. Cyprian, etc. acted in defiance of Pope Stephan and Pope Zosimos.
As Chalcedon did not adopt the Tome, but wrote its own definition, it would seem that St. Flavian erred.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
It is different to rebuke a person and to deny his authority. St. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the pope, but she did not deny his authority. The fact is that in the case of Pope Victor, his authority was presumed. Irenaues did not, as you say, point out any authority of the Churches. He says that Victor shouldn’t cut them off. He didn’t say that he couldn’t cut them off, but that he shouldn’t cut them off. There is absolutely no reference to the Church’s authority anywhere here. The only thing that is said about them is that Pope St. Victor was going to cut them off, and that he shouldn’t do it. Neither Irenaues’ or Eusebius’ language makes any sense whatsoever if Irenaeus couldn’t cut them off.
I’m really getting two different arguments against the papacy here. In the case of Victor, the argument is made that he had no authority to do what he did, and so everyone readily rebuked him for so audacious an affront. In the case of Leo, the argument is made that he had no authority, and so everyone ignored him. Which is it? Were the popes ignored when they tried to exercise unlawful authority, or rebuked?
The meaning of this Canon is disputed. From Schaff:
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Here’s really one of the main issues to this discussion: obedience. The claim is being made that because the Pope’s directives were disobeyed by some, they had no force. If this in itself proved anything, then the 10 Commandments themselves would have no force because they are disobeyed, or the laws of states would have no force, for theyare regularly disobeyed without punishment. Indeed, the laws of the Roman Church today are disobeyed by those clearly under Her jurisdiction, but this does not mean that they have no real binding authority.
Now you’re absolutely right to argue that disobedience can be evidence of a lack of authority. If someone is constantly giving orders that are being ignored, then that gives reason to question whether he in fact has any authority. It just doesn’t in and of itself prove anything. One has to look at other things, such as where the claim to authority is, who is ignoring him, and on the other hand, in what way obedience *is *manifest.
Now Pope Julius was ignored, but by whom? Many of them were Arians - people who were disobedient to an Ecumenical Council. So we can’t really look to them, because by their example one would conclude that Nicaea had no authority, which is absurd. Other popes were also disobeyed by people of questionable repute. I don’t mean to argue that it was *only *such people who ever disobeyed the bishop of Rome, but simply that it often was.
Was there any way in which obedience to the bishop of Rome was manifest? Well yes, there was, many times. Virtually all the bishops of the world obeyed Victor’s call that councils be held to settle the date for Easter, and all of them except those who had originally disobeyed him voted in favor of his opinion. Pope Julius was obeyed when some of the deposed bishops were admitted back over their Churches.
Historians like Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen report that he had such authority. This is of particular weight. A bishop or politician’s obedience, or lack-there-of, may be based on the legitimate rule of authority, but it may also be based on his own personal ambitions or desires. With historians, this is far less likely a question. They record history; they don’t oversee Churches or vie for power. So when a contemporary historian reports something, it has far more importance than a bishop or a politician.
Of course, historians can have agendas and do take sides, but in the case of Socrates and Sozomen, they were Eastern historians who virtually never wrote of the Western Church. Were either of them have taken sides, it would most certainly have been with the East, for they had almost no connection or interest in the West whatsoever. These men wrote that the bishop of Rome had authority over other Churches. You say that “neither [Socrates], nor you, can produce said canon” as he reports exists, but this is really a non-sequiter. There are many ancient sources that nobody can produce, having been lost with time, but the existence of which nobody denies. The Council of Constantinople itself is known through the reports of Socrates and Sozomen. The authority by which we know of the Council of Constantinople is that very same by which we know of the canon that declares the authority of the bishop of Rome.
Moving on, we find that men of high rank in the Churches acknowledge the authority of the bishop of Rome. Both Flavian and Anatolius, archbishops of Constantinople, assert the authority of the Apostolic See over, and even in place of, Ecumenical Councils. The argument has been put forth that these men were mistaken, or that others ignored them, but that’s irrelevant and unproven. Whereas Arians and other men of known disobedience, and perhaps some otherwise obedient men, at times disobeyed the pope, other men, men of great authority in the Church of Constantinople, asserted that another man of great authority was over them. John, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, also asserted this - and he even declared the successors of Peter to be “by the word of the Lord, infallible.”
In other words, yes, some folks disobeyed the bishops of Rome. But others asserted their authority and did obey them, and these others were not just any bishop, but men with authority over all the bishops who did disobey. Scholars, who had no dog in the fight and who would have sided against the Papacy were they to have, assert the authority of the Pope. When Leo struck canon 28 from Chalcedon, some Eastern bishops later asserted it’s authority at Quinsext, but in the immediate aftermath of Chalcedon, the various collections of canons put together did not include it. Theodore the Lector and John Scholasticus, both Greek historians, and Dionysius Exeguus, one some identify as an Eastern scholar living in Rome, all produced lists of Chalcedonian canons excluding the 28th.
So while some of the biased men of the time came together at Trullo to reassert the canon, the contemporary “newspaper reporters,” the “just the facts, ma’am” types, reported 27 canons, in accord with Leo’s decree. The testimony of the patriarchs coupled with that of the historians speaks very strongly in support of the idea that the men at Trullo were simply disobedient to legitimate authority. One can claim that the patriarchs were mistaken and that people licitly disobeyed Leo, but this has to be proven in opposition to the evidence to the contrary. Flavian and Anatolius were the authority over Constantinople in their time, and they taught that they were under the authority of Leo. What Council ever overrulled their assertions, offered with their unambiguously legitimate authority?
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Not even all of the East accepted Constantinople until Chalcedon. Gregory Nazianzus, for example,censured it. Furthermore, the fathers of the Council of Ephesus acted as though they were not even aware of it in their definition of faith. This definition of faith, reproducing the creed of Nicaea, declared that only this Creed was permissible, and that nobody could change it. It rejected the very thing that I Constantinople had done. Schaff quotes Hefele on the authority of the Council:
The evidence shows that Constantinople was clearly not considered ecumenical by anyone save the 150 or so bishops in attendance until the time of Chalcedon.
Carthage was a suffrage of Rome, but the point is that Augustine said that Innocent was speaking entirely lawfully to assert that the Councils of even distant provinces were not authoritative apart from the bishop of Rome’s approval. As regards Cyprian, he was disobedient. It is not an unusual concept.
Chalcedon accepted Leo’s Tome without even discussing it. It was read, and the Council fathers immediately declared “This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! Thus Cyril taught; Leo and Cyril teach the same; anathema to him who teaches otherwise.”
They later promulgated their own definition, but in this the expressly mentioned Leo’s Tome, saying that they were including it “for the establishment of orthodox doctrines.” It goes on to say that:
- it expels from the assembly of the priests those who dare to say that the divinity of the Only-begotten is passible, and
- it stands opposed to those who imagine a mixture or confusion between the two natures of Christ; and
- it expels those who have the mad idea that the servant-form he took from us is of a heavenly or some other kind of being; and
- it anathematises those who concoct two natures of the Lord before the union but imagine a single one after the union.
Peace and God bless!
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Rome adopted the “fruit of disobedience” of these Fathers, namely the Creed, and put them on the Saint Kalendar.
You have stated that even Arians obeyed Julius, and so prove supremacy.
No one says Victor made any call to hold synods. Not even suggested.
They voted in favor of their local tradition. Btw, Rome’s date for Pascha was not the one eventually adopted, but Alexandria’s.
Are you talking about his suffragans, or the ones that the emperor recalled from exile?
.
Sozomen says the pope CLAIMED he had such authority, and Socrates does not, nor can he, cite a canon as was claimed.
Socrated was a Novatian, so again who he saw as Rome would be interesting.
And for such a fundamental law, yes, you would have to show such a canon.
And Antolia continued to implement canon 28. With obedience like that, who needs disobedience.
As for Flavian, being deposed it would make sense he would enlist Rome’s aid, and embelish it to that end.
I’ve already cited the incorporation of the canon in imperial law, Trullo, Leo’s complaint that even his suffragan’s adopted it, etc. but more over the overwhelming fact that Constantionple acted as number 2 shows that the myth of the missing canon is just that, a myth.
Constantinople I, II, III, IV and Chalcedon. And they STILL acted as second place, helping themselves to Thessolinica for example.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
No, he did not.
Most people today refere to it as the Nicene Creed.
As Constantinople I had so declared.
The Creed shows up in St. Epiphanius’ works in Palestine.
Interesting, I’m so used to seeing Cyprian quoted as a supporter of Rome’s supremacy.Carthage was a suffrage of Rome, but the point is that Augustine said that Innocent was speaking entirely lawfully to assert that the Councils of even distant provinces were not authoritative apart from the bishop of Rome’s approval. As regards Cyprian, he was disobedient. It is not an unusual concept.
What did those in distant provinces state on the matter?
Now you err: a commission of 200 had examined it beforehand. It had already circulated before being precented.
Hmmm. How did Cyril slip in there?
Then the wouldn’t have examined it, and would have just accepted it as is.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
The only thing that I can see the Catholic Church of being guilty of is changing the Creed. However this was way within the authority of the Church. If the Roman Church is indeed infallible than, they do have the authority to change the Creed. It is also of note that the original Creed is called the Nicene Creed and the second the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed. Why can the Church not add on to the continued revelation from Christ. If the Church failed to receive revelation, then the Church would be dead.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
If no politics were involved then yes you are correct, however because the Western Church of Rome and the Eastern Church of Constantinople were rivals, the Eastern Church seeing this as a reason to go against the West, used it. Pope St. Leo IX made a bad decision, here for two reasons. Although he had the authority to change the Creed, he should not have, furthermore, he should not have because it separated the Church. However the schism on both sides was without a doubt inevitable.
- Status