Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[prodromos]

This is the answer to the exact question that I asked yesterday.

So, if Eastern bishops and patriarchs can be “bad”, is it possible that some of them may have rejected the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in order to preserve their own importance?

Maybe? Just a little bit possible?

There is no supremacy of the Pope for them to reject. It is not found in the canons of the ecumenical councils, nor is it found in scripture. There is only one in the Church who holds supremacy, and that is Christ Jesus.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There is no supremacy of the Pope for them to reject. It is not found in the canons of the ecumenical councils, nor is it found in scripture. There is only one in the Church who holds supremacy, and that is Christ Jesus.

Amen

 

[prodromos]

The problem with the Orthodox is that they never take what the fathers say at face value, because underneath all the flourishes and hyperbole is the TRUTH.

So are you stating that the Patriarch of Alexandria IS the judge of the universe?

 

[Seraphim73]

Absolutely not, those that usually behaved in ways that showed little respect for Rome were either deposed/excommunicated, proven wrong or politically motivated (St. Cyprian and the issue of rebaptism, St. Victor and the Quatradecimans, those who issued canon 28 . . . ). Moreover, challenging the pope is not the same as disrespecting him, i.e., his brother bishops have a right to question him on matters of faith and morals (think of Honorius), what they don’t have the right to do is usurp his authority.

And the popes who misbehaved were excommunicated. Could you imagine a pope being excommunicated today?

There is a difference between hyperbole and lies, i.e., one can talk in an elaborate manner about the prerogatives of the pope but one cannot lie about the pope having those prerogatives.

The problem with the Orthodox is that they never take what the fathers say at face value, because underneath all the flourishes and hyperbole is the TRUTH.

The only reason for us to accept them as superlatives in regards to other patriarchs and emperors and as literal facts in regards to the pope is because we are told now that we should. Again, you have to show a pattern of behavior showing the Church believed that way. That’s where the Catholic argument collapses.

 

[Seraphim73]

Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices,(1) ye joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that ye give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination.

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince ( exarkos ) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation ( qemelios ) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.

I will say the idea that you put forward the statement of one papal legate, especially while you say only 150 bishops at Chalcedon approved canon 28, is not convincing. That’s even more the case when you find out the papal legate spoke Latin and the fathers all spoke Greek. And that’s saying nothing of the fact of what actually happened at Ephesus. The pope anathametized Nestorius but then the Council went on to judge him anyway. Here is what Bishop Maret said.

“The Pope had pronounced in the affair of Nestorius a canonical judgment clothed with all the authority of his see. He had prescribed its execution. Yet, three months after this sentence and before its execution, all the episcopate is invited to examine afresh and to decide freely the question in dispute.”

So again appealing to the words of a papal legate ring empty in the face of what was actually done.

 

[Wandile]

And the popes who misbehaved were excommunicated. Could you imagine a pope being excommunicated today?

Many attempted to… None successfully did because such a thing is impossible.

Secondly many people questioned the Holy Trinity , divinity of Christ and various other teachings. Can you imagine someone in the church doing that today? Nope why? Because we are passed that stage ans now many things implicit are now explicit.

only reason for us to accept them as superlatives in regards to other patriarchs and emperors and as literal facts in regards to the pope is because we are told now that we should. Again, you have to show a pattern of behavior showing the Church believed that way. That’s where the Catholic argument collapses.

Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:
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."

Abbot St. Theodore of Studion (November 11) says in 816 [Letter II:129 to Sakellarios Leo in PG 99:1420A]:

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

Metropolitan Sergius of Cyprus says in 649, in a letter read in Session 2 of the Council of the Lateran [Letter to Pope Theodore I of Rome in Mansi X:914]:

** “O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed.”**

St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (August 13) says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:

“Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man … but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox.** He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.**.”"

This is the testimony from the eastern fathers

 

[Seraphim73]

This is the answer to the exact question that I asked yesterday.

So, if Eastern bishops and patriarchs can be “bad”, is it possible that some of them may have rejected the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in order to preserve their own importance?

Maybe? Just a little bit possible?

If popes can be “bad”, is it possible some of them may have claimed authority they did not have in order to enhance their own importance?

Maybe? Just a little bit possible?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (August 13) says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:

“Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man … but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox.** He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.**.”

"

Well, St. Maximus was fighting with Pope Martin I the Monothelite heresy, confirmed by the Third Council of Constantinople 680AD.

To make an end of the Monothelite controversy, Emperor Constantine IV asked Pope Donus in 678 to send twelve bishops and four western Greek monastic superiors to represent the pope at an assembly of eastern and western theologians. Pope Agatho, who meanwhile had succeeded Donus, ordered consultation in the west on this important matter. Around Easter 680 a synod in Rome of 125 Italian bishops, with Pope Agatho presiding, **assessed the replies of the regional synods of the west **and composed a profession of faith in which Monothelitism was condemned. Legates of the pope took this profession to Constantinople, arriving at the beginning of September 680.

On 10 September 680 the emperor issued an edict to Patriarch George of Constantinople, ordering a council of bishops to be convoked. The council assembled on 7 November in the hall of the imperial palace in Constantinople. It immediately called itself an ecumenical council. There were 18 sessions, at the first eleven of which the emperor presided.

In the 8th session, on 7 March 681, the council adopted the teaching of Pope Agatho in condemnation of Monothelitism. Patriarch Macarius of Antioch was one of the few who refused his assent; he was deposed in the 12th session.

**The doctrinal conclusions of the council **were defined in the 17th session and promulgated in the 18th and last session on 16 September 681. **The acts of the council, signed both by 174 fathers **and finally by the emperor himself, were sent to Pope Leo II, who had succeeded Agatho, and he, when he had approved them, ordered them to be translated into Latin and to be signed by all the bishops of the west. Constantine IV, however, promulgated the decrees of the council in all parts of the empire by imperial edict. The council did not debate church discipline and did not establish any disciplinary cannons.

This is a perfect example of leadership and not supremacy. An Ecumenical Council was called and the Whole Church determined.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

There is no theory in this thread, but cold hard facts. Address them.

Actually, this thread appears to be about carefully selected snippets that are being cobbled together in an attempt to paint a picture that may not necessarily reflect reality.

Josie will address them and sort it out.

An example of a pet theory would be a thread about the Royal Steward, which is based on interpretation.

Indeed. I just don’t see much difference between yours and mine.

Your Freudian slips keep piling up. I have offered nothing of the sort as to the end of Catholicism. You are just threaten by the facts. I don’t blame you.

Ah…now there is an ad hominem.

You have failed to provide any documentation at all in regards to the first 1,000 years of Church history. IOW, you have presented no argumentation other than opinion and my person.

Have finished reading Fr. Fortescue’s book yet? I’m pretty sure I encouraged you to examine how he address the historty of the papacy up to the Council of Chalcedon.

Post #44. You said and I quote: “So, this thread was set up to debate ME?”

This is not about you.

Note carefully that I never said it was about ME. I was never going to be the subject of this thread. I asked if the purpose was to DEBATE me.

This is about Church history, not to debate you. In fact, you have presented nothing to debate other than a distraction from the thread. Unless you can produce evidence, just refrain from posting in it.

Okay, then. This thread was not established to debate me.

You did, however, specifically asked me to respond your question which you said you had asked five or six times, so I did.

And then I asked you some questions which you answered. Gee, we were playing so nicely together.

I guess we should wrap this up for now.

 

[Seraphim73]

Many attempted to… None successfully did because such a thing is impossible.

Secondly many people questioned the Holy Trinity , divinity of Christ and various other teachings. Can you imagine someone in the church doing that today? Nope why? Because we are passed that stage ans now many things implicit are now explicit.

Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:
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."

Abbot St. Theodore of Studion (November 11) says in 816 [Letter II:129 to Sakellarios Leo in PG 99:1420A]:

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

Metropolitan Sergius of Cyprus says in 649, in a letter read in Session 2 of the Council of the Lateran [Letter to Pope Theodore I of Rome in Mansi X:914]:

** “O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed.”**

St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (August 13) says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:

“Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man … but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox.** He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.**.”

"

This is the testimony from the eastern fathers

Quite the contrary quite a few popes were excommunicated. Either way I suppose we are playing the quote game again. I would point out, just like I have several times already, all of the people here accepted the 28th canon of Chalcedon that Leo rejected. Not to mention the acts of Constantinople I, Ephesus and Chalcedon and all the attendant history. As they say actions speak louder than words…unless of course those actions are in reference to the papacy, then they are meaningless apparently.

 

[Wandile]

Well, St. Maximus was fighting with Pope Martin I the Monothelite heresy, confirmed by the Third Council of Constantinople 680AD.

Maximus did not have a dispute with Pope Martin but rather maximus upheld the decisions of Rome as binding and authoritative. His quote further showed that you cannot be truly orthodox in faith if you have no communion with rome. That’s why Patriarch St.Menas of Constantinople said of Rome:

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."

This is a perfect example of leadership and not supremacy. An Ecumenical Council was called and the Whole Church determined.

I love how you forget to highlight the crucial point :

The acts of the council, signed both by 174 fathers and finally by the emperor himself, were sent to Pope Leo II, who had succeeded Agatho, and he, when he had approved them, ordered them to be translated into Latin and to be signed by all the bishops of the west.

This was for Papal ratification because as the Easter father St. Theodore of Studion said :

…Western Patriarch [the Roman Pope] to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod"

 

[Wandile]

Quite the contrary quite a few popes were excommunicated. Either way I suppose we are playing the quote game again. I would point out, just like I have several times already, all of the people here accepted the 28th canon of Chalcedon that Leo rejected. Not to mention the acts of Constantinople I, Ephesus and Chalcedon and all the attendant history. As they say actions speak louder than words…unless of course those actions are in reference to the papacy, then they are meaningless apparently.

No pope has been excommunicated ever! There have only been attempts and all have failed time after time. Even an ecumenical council could not condemn a pope for heresy as when the pope ratified the council he changed the ruling to a condemnation if negligence.pope vigilius’ case was even more hilarious as the bishops reluctantly struck his name off the diptychs but yet still sought his confirmation of the acts due to the fact that no council has force without papal ratification. They imprisoned him until he signed. If he were truly excommunicated, they wouldn’t have even bothered trying to get his signature lol

All ? When all speak of 27 canons and not 28? Clearly not all bit a few who had a political ambition. Leo and the Alexandria a rejected it sternly! The whole eest and even the Patriarch of Constantinople of the time renounced it in his letter to Pope Leo.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Maximus did not have a dispute with Pope Martin but rather maximus upheld the decisions of Rome as binding and authoritative.

Badly worded, I meant “together with” Pope Martin I.

His quote further showed that you cannot be truly orthodox in faith if you have no communion with rome. That’s why Patriarch St.Menas of Constantinople said if Rome:

That is subject to interpretation and not Canon Law established by an Ecumenical Council.

Iblive how you forget to highlight the crucial pint :

This was for Papal ratification because as the Easter father St. Theodore of Studion said :

That would actually work better IF St. Theodore of Studion -759–826AD would have been alive at the time of the 3rd Council of Constatinople - 680-681AD.

Again, there is no authoritative and ecumenical Church document to support the actual exercise of the papacy during the first 1,000 years of Church history. ECF’s opinions are great - but unless they are ratified by an Ecumenical Church Council like what we just discussed, it’s just an opinion.

 

[Wandile]

Badly worded, I meant “together with” Pope Martin I.

Ok I see

That would actually work better IF St. Theodore of Studion -759–826AD would have been alive at the time of the 3rd Council of Constatinople - 680-681AD.

Again, there is no authoritative and ecumenical Church document to support the actual exercise of the papacy during the first 1,000 years of Church history. ECF’s opinions are great - but unless they are ratified by an Ecumenical Church Council like what we just discussed, it’s just an opinion.

How about a testimony from the 4th century from a historian of the time and a Pope both confirming St.Theodor :

the 4th century Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following:

"Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an** ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.**

…On the receipt of these contradictory communications, **Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, **complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome "

Pope St. Zosimus of Rome (December 26) says in 417 [Letter 12:1 to the Council of Carthage in PL 20:676AB]:
Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter… For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat…** Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time…and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision.**

Pope St. Boniface I of Rome (September 4) says in 422 [Letter 13 to Bishop Rufus of Thessalonica in PL 20:776A], “For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See.”

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Food for thought: How do we know that the Ecumenical Councils are infallible and to what extent does infallibility apply?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

How about a testimony from the 4th century from a historian of the time and a Pope both confirming St.Theodor :

The problem with quote mining is that we get to the same place we get with bible verse slinging:

nowhere.

It is specifically why I did not include any quotes outside of Ecumenical and Official Church documents.

 

[Wandile]

The problem with quote mining is that we get to the same place we get with bible verse slinging:

nowhere.

It is specifically why I did not include any quotes outside of Ecumenical and Official Church documents.

That right there is the biggest cop out/side step I have ever seen. That is to evidence that blatantly contradicts your position and supports that of Rome and the supporting fathers presented. A church historian’s testimony cannot be brushed aside. Add to that a GREEK Constantinopolitan historian

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That right there is th biggest side step I have ever seen to evidence that blatantly contradicts your position and supports that if Rome and the fathers presented. A church historians testimony cannot be brushed aside. Add to that an eastern church historian

It doesn’t support Rome present claim to the Papacy.

The Ecumenical Councils are the Authority of the Whole Church. No Church Historian is over them.

 

[Wandile]

It doesn’t support Rome present claim to the Papacy.

The Ecumenical Councils are the Authority of the Whole Church. No Church Historian is over them.

Nor does he claim to. Rather the historian merely accounts for the situation as it was… More than once… and the bishops of Rome , a monk from Constantinople and an eastern Abbot amongst scores of others confirm what the historian recorded of the time.

This is what we call Internal consistency

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Nor does he claim to. Rather the historian merely accounts for the situation as it was. More than once and the bishops of Rome , a monk from Constantinople and ab eastern Abbot amongst scores of others confirm what the historian recorded of the time.

This is what we call Internal consistency

No, that’s where you would like to turn the argument to. Historians are prone to error and subject to the information available to them at the time.

The Church has spoken through the Ecumenical Councils. The acts and the canons of the Church define and protect us from the attacks to the Faith. A historian does not.

I take it you don’t have an authoritative and ecumenical Church document that support the claims of the Bishop of Rome before the Great Schism?

I have dug really deep and have found none. I am always on the lookout for such documents. Any reference is greatly appreciated.