Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Seraphim73]

And I find it also interesting that it was the Catholic Church which reaches all over the world, not just the Roman Rite, but all the other Rites with are part of the Church.

Really? Why is that?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Please read the below webpage regarding Canon 28

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_are_the_other_patriarchs_dependent_on_rome.php

Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople actually apologizes to Pope St. Leo regarding Canon 28.

I also find it interesting that of the 3 original patriarchs + Jerusalem & Constantinople: Rome is the only See left that is still predominantly Christian and Catholic.

• Alexandria --a Muslim city, which had been predominantly Monophysite before that.
• Antioch – Ditto; and a city that no longer exists, with its descendants living in Damascus and a third of them answering to Rome.
• Jerusalem --a Muslim and Jewish city, where few Christians even live anymore.
• Constantinople --another Islamic city with a tiny Christian minority.

And I find it also interesting that it was the Catholic Church which reaches all over the world, not just the Roman Rite, but all the other Rites with are part of the Church.

Food for thought.

Anyway this website: 2lungs.com is a great site.

God Bless.

All very interesting, thanks!

Again, I don’t think there is necessarily an argument against primacy. There is definitely an argument against supremacy.

As for why Rome. Dr. Taylor Marshall has what I think is the best presentation for that question. Not that I agree with everything in the book .

The Eternal City

 

[phil19034]

Really? Why is that?

Because the Catholic Church; not the Church of the East, the Eastern Orthodox, or the Oriental Orthodox has grown to over 1 Billion. (of course lots do not practice). I feel that Christ has a hand in why the Catholic Church has spread around the globe and has grown.

It also deeply saddens me that there are more Protestants than Orthodox Christians.

In all honestly, Catholics and Orthodox (OO, EO) - plus the Church of the East - need to find a way to mend the wounds and reunite. Only together can we stop the spread of Protestantism and bring these Christians back to the Sacraments.

God Bless.

 

[phil19034]

All very interesting, thanks!

Again, I don’t think there is necessarily an argument against primacy. There is definitely an argument against supremacy.

As for why Rome. Dr. Taylor Marshall has what I think is the best presentation for that question. Not that I agree with everything in the book .

The Eternal City

But we have to remember that councils usually only defined things when there was disagreement. Canons were often only written when needed. So a “lack of evidence” to support Catholic claims does not mean the claims are invalid. It’s similar to our (Catholics and Orthodox) discussions with Protestants about the Sacraments.

I also would like to make the following comments:

1. I personally believe in the Papacy because I believe that Christ wanted to leave a visible leader on earth to protect us from bad bishops.
2. If/when union is achieved, I do NOT think the role of the Pope would be the same as it is within the Latin Church or even exactly the same as the Eastern Catholic Churches. I believe it would be similar to the how the Eastern Catholic Churches are, but I would expect the Patriarchs to have more power than the current Eastern Catholic leaders do (mainly because the numbers of followers would be much higher and that the original patriarchs would be back in communion.) I would also expect them to become automatic Cardinal-Bishops in the Church, and not in an honorary role.
3. In a unified Church, I would expect that the only time the Pope would “interfere” with the Patriarchs is if the Patriarch was teaching heresy, corrupt, etc. Maybe he would have a veto on the election of a Patriarch or maybe only the ability to excommunicate or remove. I don’t know. But there would need to be a way to remove a bad patriarch.
4. Finally, I have a question. In the current set up of the Easter Orthodox Church, if a Bishop was covering up a sex abuse scandal or doing something illegal which came to light, what can the Patriarch of Constantinople do about it? How can a “bad bishop” be dealt with? Can Constantinople reassign him to a monastery or something?

The power to remove Judases is exactly why I believe Christ intended for Peter and his successor to have the keys and be the rock.

God Bless.

 

[Seraphim73]

Because the Catholic Church; not the Church of the East, the Eastern Orthodox, or the Oriental Orthodox has grown to over 1 Billion. (of course lots do not practice). I feel that Christ has a hand in why the Catholic Church has spread around the globe and has grown.

It also deeply saddens me that there are more Protestants than Orthodox Christians.

In all honestly, Catholics and Orthodox (OO, EO) - plus the Church of the East - need to find a way to mend the wounds and reunite. Only together can we stop the spread of Protestantism and bring these Christians back to the Sacraments.

God Bless.

Honestly I’ve always wondered at this interpretation. I don’t think people think through the implications of what they are saying. In order for this to be correct you have to believe it was God’s will that millions of Christians died at the hands of the Muslims as a show of divine judgment for not accepting the papacy. You also have to believe the fact that the European imperial powers that colonized the New World and killed possibly millions of natives also did that because of some divine favor in order to spread Roman Catholicism. If that is the God you believe in we don’t have much in common.

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. - **Matthew 7:13-14 **

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. - Matthew 24:9

We thank God everyday for the martyrs and confessors who suffered and died for centuries in order to transmit the faith to us today. They are the boast and the glory of Orthodoxy.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness." - 1 Corinthians 3:19

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - 1 Corinthians 1:20-25

http://www.newbyzantines.net/byzcathculture/icons/neomartyrs.jpg

https://www.archangelsbooks.com/prodimages/Giant/Icons/NTW-1075.jpg

 

[spina1953]

Honestly I’ve always wondered at this interpretation. I don’t think people think through the implications of what they are saying. In order for this to be correct you have to believe it was God’s will that millions of Christians died at the hands of the Muslims as a show of divine judgment for not accepting the papacy. You also have to believe the fact that the European imperial powers that colonized the New World and killed possibly millions of natives also did that because of some divine favor in order to spread Roman Catholicism. If that is the God you believe in we don’t have much in common.

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. - **Matthew 7:13-14 **

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. - Matthew 24:9

We thank God everyday for the martyrs and confessors who suffered and died for centuries in order to transmit the faith to us today. They are the boast and the glory of Orthodoxy.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness." - 1 Corinthians 3:19

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - 1 Corinthians 1:20-25

http://www.newbyzantines.net/byzcathculture/icons/neomartyrs.jpg

https://www.archangelsbooks.com/prodimages/Giant/Icons/NTW-1075.jpg

I for one do not think that its God’s will that so many were martyred by Muslims I tend more to think that God allows evil so that His Goodness can be seen.

 

[Seraphim73]

I for one do not think that its God’s will that so many were martyred by Muslims I tend more to think that God allows evil so that His Goodness can be seen.

But where is God’s goodness seen? Is it in the accumulation of earthly power or in the bearing of suffering and martyrdom?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But we have to remember that councils usually only defined things when there was disagreement. Canons were often only written when needed. So a “lack of evidence” to support Catholic claims does not mean the claims are invalid. It’s similar to our (Catholics and Orthodox) discussions with Protestants about the Sacraments.

Very weak argumentation. Yes the Canons are often written when needed but that does nothing with the absence of exceptions and waivers and current supremacy of Rome.

I also would like to make the following comments:

1. I personally believe in the Papacy because I believe that Christ wanted to leave a visible leader on earth to protect us from bad bishops.

The Pope is also a Bishop, which is why the pillar and bulwark of truth is the Church not a single Bishop.

1. If/when union is achieved, I do NOT think the role of the Pope would be the same as it is within the Latin Church or even exactly the same as the Eastern Catholic Churches. I believe it would be similar to the how the Eastern Catholic Churches are, but I would expect the Patriarchs to have more power than the current Eastern Catholic leaders do (mainly because the numbers of followers would be much higher and that the original patriarchs would be back in communion.) I would also expect them to become automatic Cardinal-Bishops in the Church, and not in an honorary role.

Yes, the role of the Pope will be the same, unless Canon Law (Which I posted on the first page) is amended and “De Fide” articles in regards to be Papacy are amended as well.

To Wit (Source: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma-Ott):

1. 
   *]Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to he the first of all the Apostles alld to be the visible Head of the whole Churcht by appointing him immediately and personally to the prim.acy of jurisdiction. (De fide.)
   
   *]According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Cllurch and for all time. (De fide.)
   
   *]The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome. (De fide.)
   
   *]The Pope possesses full and supreme power of juris… diction over the whole Church, not merely in matters
   *]of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church. (De fide.)
   
   *]The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. (De fide.)
   
   *]The individual bishop receives his pastoral power immediately from the Pope. (Sent. probabilior.)
   

   1. In a unified Church, I would expect that the only time the Pope would “interfere” with the Patriarchs is if the Patriarch was teaching heresy, corrupt, etc. Maybe he would have a veto on the election of a Patriarch or maybe only the ability to excommunicate or remove. I don’t know. But there would need to be a way to remove a bad patriarch.

   Or a bad Pope. Again, there’s no exceptions for Rome to avoid being deposed/removed in those initial 1,000+ years.
   

   1. Finally, I have a question. In the current set up of the Easter Orthodox Church, if a Bishop was covering up a sex abuse scandal or doing something illegal which came to light, what can the Patriarch of Constantinople do about it? How can a “bad bishop” be dealt with? Can Constantinople reassign him to a monastery or something?

   I’m not Orthodox and have not studied their canon laws. I’ll let others that are versed answer.
   

   The power to remove Judases is exactly why I believe Christ intended for Peter and his successor to have the keys and be the rock.

   And Rome is exempt from Judases because?
   

   God Bless.

   And you as well.

 

[josie_L]

Why is it every time a bishop resists Rome they are self aggrandizing and every time a pope claims authority for themselves it’s not?

Excuse me, but when did I say “every time”? Moreover, I made it clear that the pope’s claims are based on Scripture and Tradition, hence, there was no need for popes to take what was already validly ordained by Christ.

Appeals to a primatial see are nothing unusual. That is still the way the Orthodox Church operates today.

Rome was not just a court of appeal, it was the FINAL court of appeal.

What do you say to the canon from Chalcedon granting appellate authority to Constantinople? I would also point out that the canons from Sardica only grant appellate authority to Rome whereas this canon grants to Constantinople authority to be a court of first instance if the dispute involves a metropolitan.

The canons of Sardica specifically state that the bishop of Rome has the last say, i.e., he can either uphold the decisions of his brother bishops or not, moreover, the canons indicating this were upheld by EAST and WEST. So even though it was already customary to receive appeals from all over the Church in order to finalize disputes, it was formalized into canon law at Sardica and Trullo (which is considered ecumenical by the Orthodox). Rome therefore was the final arbiter.

 

[prodromos]

1. I personally believe in the Papacy because I believe that Christ wanted to leave a visible leader on earth to protect us from bad bishops.

We’ve had plenty of bad bishops, some of them patriarchs, yet they’ve never had a lasting impact on the Church. All this without the papacy.

1. In a unified Church, I would expect that the only time the Pope would “interfere” with the Patriarchs is if the Patriarch was teaching heresy, corrupt, etc. Maybe he would have a veto on the election of a Patriarch or maybe only the ability to excommunicate or remove. I don’t know. But there would need to be a way to remove a bad patriarch.

A few years ago the patriarch of Jerusalem was deposed by a council of his peers for his misuse of properties owned by the patriarchate. No pope needed.

1. Finally, I have a question. In the current set up of the Easter Orthodox Church, if a Bishop was covering up a sex abuse scandal or doing something illegal which came to light, what can the Patriarch of Constantinople do about it? How can a “bad bishop” be dealt with? Can Constantinople reassign him to a monastery or something?

The Church functions perfectly well without the office of the papacy as demonstrated above. Your question is moot.

The power to remove Judases is exactly why I believe Christ intended for Peter and his successor to have the keys and be the rock.

This has been demonstrated not to follow by the above responses.

 

[josie_L]

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. - Canon IX of Chalcedon

Yes, he will go first to his own bishop and lastly to the bishop of Rome if the clergyman in question appeals any decisions made by the Exarch. Here are the canons to which I refer (from Sardica and Trullo).

Here are the canons of Sardica/Trullo:

Canon III.

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add,-that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity.

And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province.

But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before. (Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add,-that bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless perchance upon invitation from their brethren, that we seem not to close the door of charity.

But if in any province a bishop have a matter in dispute against his brother bishop, one of the two shall not call in as judge a bishop from another province.

But if judgment, have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it be your pleasure, honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure.

Canon IV.

(Greek.)

Bishop Gaudentius said: It ought to be added, if it be your pleasure, to this sentence full of sanctity which thou hast pronounced, that-when any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who have sees in neighbouring places, and he [the bishop deposed] shall announce that his case is to be examined in the city of Rome-that no other bishop shall in any wise be ordained to his see, after the appeal of him who is apparently deposed, unless the case shall have been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop.

Canon V.

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right-that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

The bishops answered: What has been said is approved. (Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: Further decreed, that if a bishop is accused, and the bishops of that region assemble and depose him from his office, if he who has been deposed shall appeal and take refuge with the bishop of the Roman church and wishes to be given a hearing, if he think it right that the trial or examination of his case be renewed, let him be pleased to write to those bishops who are in an adjacent and neighbouring province, that they may diligently inquire into all the particulars and decide according to the word of truth. But if he who asks to have his case reheard, shall by his entreaty move the Bishop of Rome to send a presbyter a latere it shall be in the power of that bishop to do what he shall resolve and determine upon; and if he shall decide that some be sent, who shall be present and be judges with the bishops invested with his authority by whom they were appointed, it shall be as he shall choose. But if he believe that the bishops suffice to give a final decision, he shall do what he shall termine upon in his most wise judgment.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, he will go first to his own bishop and lastly to the bishop of Rome if the clergyman in question appeals any decisions made by the Exarch. Here are the canons to which I refer (from Sardica and Trullo).

Here are the canons of Sardica/Trullo:

Hmm… Bishop Hosius is San Osio de Cordoba, Bishop of Cordova in Spain. IOW a Western Bishop. Naturally he is going to refer to the Bishop of Rome. But not only that, Osio was an advisor of Constantine, whom after his death - the throne was about to succumb to the Arian heresy. Obviously the region was not the best venue to settle matters at the time. As such he appeals to Rome.

San Osio is a fascinating character and buddy with St. Athanasius

 

[josie_L]

But the question is how did those fathers behave? You can easily see many of those same fathers saying things and behaving in ways that show they did not believe Rome had anything close to the authority it claims today.

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.

Greek rhetorical writing was always elaborate and full of flourish. You can see that clearly if you read anything written about the emperor or many other bishops.

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.

Is the Patriarch of Alexandria really the “judge of the universe”? See how this style was used? The problem is Catholics take the hyperbole and flourish to be literal.

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.

 

[josie_L]

Hmm… Bishop Hosius is San Osio de Cordoba, Bishop of Cordova in Spain. IOW a Western Bishop. Naturally he is going to refer to the Bishop of Rome. But not only that, Osio was an advisor of Constantine, whom after his death - the throne was about to succumb to the Arian heresy. Obviously the region was not the best venue to settle matters at the time. As such he appeals to Rome.

San Osio is a fascinating character and buddy with St. Athanasius

Bishop Hosius presided over the council (acting in lieu of Pope St. Julius), but these canons were for the whole of the Church not just Bishop Hosius of Cordoba. Sardica was meant to be ecumenical (Pope St. Julius wanted a council to regulate the matter of deposed clergyman and Arianism and so the emperors called for it), however, the Eastern bishops many of whom were semi-Arians refused to participate because St. Anthanasius was present at the council.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Instead of addressing the facts and arguments you call them: “my pet theory”

First, I began addressing them in post #41. You know this.

Second, a pet theory is any theory whose creator (or anyone who has heard it) likes more than other theories. This person usually wants the theory to be true, whether it is or it isn’t. Scientists who have a pet theory (or pet theories) may be subject to loss of objectivity because of this “affection” towards their pet theory.

How is this not an accurate description of this thread?

Instead of addressing the facts and arguments your counter is the Vatican and you losing sleep… very relevant.

First, I began addressing them in post #41. You know this.

Second, this is simply a graphic illustration that you might want to slow down before you call a press conference to announce the end of Catholicism.

Again addressing my person and not the argument.

No, I have not commented on the size of your nose or the gaps in your education. Those would be ad hominen attacks. Instead, I am simply suggesting that you stop and consider the very real possibility that your arguments are not as strong as you think they are.

You were the one who thought the thread was about you. I have done nothing but to present facts.

I NEVER said the thread was *about *me. I asked if you had started this thread specifically to *debate *me. Those are two different things.

And no, you have presented a series of snippets which (without context) suggest a certain outcome which may or may not be supported by the documents when viewed in their entirety.

What does that have to do with the arguments I’m presenting? Again, you go against my person.

Nothing at all. That was just a question based upon my observation.

Is there a stop to you going against my person?

That would first require a start.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We’ve had plenty of bad bishops, some of them patriarchs, yet they’ve never had a lasting impact on the Church. All this without the papacy.

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?

 

[prodromos]

Yes, he will go first to his own bishop and lastly to the bishop of Rome if the clergyman in question appeals any decisions made by the Exarch. Here are the canons to which I refer (from Sardica and Trullo).

Here are the canons of Sardica/Trullo:

Note carefully that the canons do not allow the Pope to make a ruling, merely to select a panel of bishops to hear the case. Thus I don’t see how these canons support your claims for the papacy

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Second, a pet theory is any theory whose creator (or anyone who has heard it) likes more than other theories. This person usually wants the theory to be true, whether it is or it isn’t. Scientists who have a pet theory (or pet theories) may be subject to loss of objectivity because of this “affection” towards their pet theory.

How is this not an accurate description of this thread?

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.

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

First, I began addressing them in post #41. You know this.

Second, this is simply a graphic illustration that you might want to slow down before you call a press conference to announce the end of Catholicism.

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.

No, I have not commented on the size of your nose or the gaps in your education. Those would be ad hominen attacks. Instead, I am simply suggesting that you stop and consider the very real possibility that your arguments are not as strong as you think they are.

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.

I NEVER said the thread was *about *me. I asked if you had started this thread specifically to *debate *me. Those are two different things.

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

This is not about you. 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.

And no, you have presented a series of snippets which (without context) suggest a certain outcome which may or may not be supported by the documents when viewed in their entirety.

These are actual Ecumenical Councils. Do you deny them?

Not obscure ideas and theories of things that “were always believed and/or accepted”.

Read them and then form your opinion and then back them with facts. Really easy to do. Without having to address my denomination, ideas or whatever else you want about my person.

 

[spina1953]

But where is God’s goodness seen? Is it in the accumulation of earthly power or in the bearing of suffering and martyrdom?

Since the time of Adam and Eve, there has been evil in the world. God gave man free will to either do good or do evil. God permits this as only God can draw good from the evil. s far as Christians being martyred by Muslims does not mean that God willed it but allowed it and God does not force man to do His will. One can look at it this way if they were martyred then they did not give up their Christian faith. And that is good.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Bishop Hosius presided over the council (acting in lieu of Pope St. Julius), but these canons were for the whole of the Church not just Bishop Hosius of Cordoba. Sardica was meant to be ecumenical (Pope St. Julius wanted a council to regulate the matter of deposed clergyman and Arianism and so the emperors called for it), however, the Eastern bishops many of whom were semi-Arians refused to participate because St. Anthanasius was present at the council.

I have found no documentation of San Osio acting in lieu of Pope St. Julius. Could you please provide a source? Thanks.